good afternoon everyone it is 4:31 p.m. 
we at Cape Canaveral city council special   meeting at the city hall council chambers at 
100 pulk Avenue in Cape canaval Florida we   have an agenda before us tonight it's 
May 7th 20124 and I call this meeting   to order council member Jackson 
would you please lead us in the pledge I pledge of aliance to the 
flag of the United States of America   and to the Republic for which it stands one nation 
under God indivisible with liy and justice for all thank you city clerk please call the 
role council member Davis here council   member Jackson here mayor protim Kellum 
here mayor Morrison here council member Willis thank you all for being 
here Council City staff and those   from the public and community and those of 
you who are participating online um at this   time Council approval of the agenda as written 
I believe is we have one item there's no changes   looking for a motion to adopt as written I'll 
make a motion we adopt I'll second okay got a   motion by mayor P Tim Kellum second by council 
member Willis any further discussion City Clerk council member Davis council member Jackson   four mayor protim Kellum for mayor 
Morrison for council member Willis for okay thank you very much approval 
or I'm sorry the public participation   portion of the meeting again those of you I 
do have one card up here uh Miss Peg schaer   if you're ready you can go ahead and come 
forward anyone else that intends to speak   please uh we ask that you complete a card and 
uh bring it here to our deputy and make we'll   make sure you're heard and for those of you 
listening online uh please raise your hand Miss schaer as weev about code enforcement has been um 
on the threat category under um the SWAT analysis   and I I felt threatened as a new business owner 
there's no doubt um I've met with Todd several   times and I am comfortable that he has gone 
through uh the questions that I had and he   has asked his staff the answer to these questions 
um he he is aware and and I've made it clear that   um that doesn't change my opinion of the actions 
that have happened they're just my opinion but   I've also stated the facts of what have happened 
and then I know that there's like my side his   side the truth and the facts are the facts you 
guys will be able to see them the interpretation   of the facts are different but I do uh appreciate 
Todd going one by one asking the questions getting   the answers and it's okay that we disagree um I'm 
just thankful that he took the time to do it um   the the big picture is is that we get this right 
as a city because you cannot retain business and   you cannot attract new business if there is an 
issue that deceit or corruption or retaliation   could possibly um be in in play so I'm grateful 
I'm glad that we're taking this time to do it and   thank you Todd for going uh through these items 
one by one and getting the answers that you did   um if possible would like to possibly speak at 
the end of the meeting I'd like to know if that's possible I do not have a problem 
Council any issue yes I'll make   sure that the public has an opportunity at 
the end just yeah thank you so much you're welcome okay if anyone else intended to speak 
I do not have your card please raise your hand yes please miss vadin please come forward 
to the m those who are listening at home on the record and you can do that at the end if it's 
convenient somebody had brought to my attention   about there's some kind of ordinance going on 
about buildings that aren in non-c compliance   you know I don't come that much anymore 
when I used to come Mr Morgan was still   here and I believe he said that we were like 
82% noncompliance in our city and what he and   I know I was trying to look for the amendment was 
either in 2010 or 2011 any building that had any   say issues like a fire remember fire being one of 
them they did not have to follow the new codes and   the reason I was at the meeting I'm like what 
what what what what and uh you know they own   property in Cape canaval and um we had to give 
some of our property back for the sand transfer   program and he said he said Mrs s Domin it's 
not you you would fall on this umbrella because   it wouldn't be necessarily being compliance and 
not being compliance but this rule is to protect   anybody in the city that has a building that 
had some kind of Destruction due to Hurricane   or fire and uh they would have to meet the codes 
that were there when it was built they could   not take down the building to meet the codes um 
this was brought to me late Saturday I think so um I didn't know how we stood in the city with who 
was working who wasn't working and I didn't want   to walk in and have someone not be able to get me 
to the proper files but if that I if someone could   just reread the amendment that you're speaking of 
but I want someone to look into to that because   and I know Jim Morgan was uh spearheaded it and I 
believe he died in 2011 so it had to be in 11 or   10 that we discussed this and it was passed so can 
I have the amendment read again so it could like   help me figure out should which side of the fence 
I should be on here all right thank you thank you want to address that um city manager are you 
familiar with the what Miss vadom is talking about   vaguely there's there's been some amendments 
to our non-conforming section of the code um   I think the best thing to do would be for um Mrs 
vadam to meet with David dicki just review the   current code as far as non-conformities and then 
you can look for any uh ordinances that Revis   this section uh relating to structures and then 
provide them to her just give her a copy of those ordinances Miss vamy I know it's if you are 
going to respond and you want it to be heard   we do need you to come back to the podium and 
and I want to make sure Council were okay with   thank you very much yes please so I'm not again 
I don't know if I'm speaking out of ter because   I don't know I didn't read the amendment as you 
s I just walked in um but I know that there was   a fire it was a Friday night it was a Friday 
Fest and I know the building Quest that Ellie   ma is in had a fire so if undo Leverage is being 
against that fire I said wait a minute there's a   lore on the we changed this and I know it was 
Jim Moran and um you know I couldn't call Buzz   because he's not here anymore can't talk to Rocky 
because I don't think he'll remember so um I just   before we rush into something that's going to 
cause a lawsuit um let's just take a look at   um I don't know if it's been revised again 
but if it had been revised again I would   have hoped that the people that were not 
in that the 82% of the city that's not in   compliance would have gotten notification that 
that was going to be taken back after they   gave it to us and um it's just a real 
question thank you okay thank you yes council member Willis did you want to speak no 
I just I I don't think it's gerain to uh Miss   sher's issue at this point so um it is something 
we should be looking at and U Mr Dicky and uh Mr   Morley and I have discussed it in the past and we 
were also going to be looking at it again um to   make sure that we were solid on our code for those 
things uh but I don't think it it at this point is   something that we would even be considering 
with Miss Sher since that structure was not destroyed thank you okay councel any other comments uh 
that's it for public participation just   to be sure anybody else hadd like 
to speak please raise your hand or   come forward seeing none for those of you 
online Vinnie please raise your hand seeing none No Hands raised we will go ahead enclose 
public participation portion of the meeting   bring it back to the council item for discussion 
tonight is to receive the city manager report   of findings regarding the community and economic 
development department roles responsibilities and   actions for properties located on Filmore Avenue 
and Jackson Avenue update I think uh it would be   wise for us to allow the city manager to I think 
give an introduction as a way of understanding   this uh meeting was scheduled at our last regular 
or I'm sorry the last special council meeting um   and the we broke it up I mean the topic is 
community and economic development but we   broke it up with Jackson Avenue first and then 
we went in I'm sorry Filmore Avenue first and   then we went into Jackson Avenue and it really 
came from the January uh 24th meeting special   meeting at the beginning of the year where 
10 items came out of that and um we have been   monitoring it along uh as as we made progress this 
was another uh uh Testament of progress our city   manager worked on I would say related to going 
back to the meeting um item number five which   was city manager and City attorney present any 
findings Andor opportunities in a report to be   distributed to the city council on ways the 
city can improve our community development   department and number that was for Filmore Avenue 
really related to the building department and   permitting side and uh the same at least was the 
intention but number five for Jackson is worded a   little differently it's present any findings 
Andor opportunities to be distributed to the   city council on ways the city can improve our 
community Development Department as it relates   to code enforcement so it was really important 
that the City attorney have an opportunity to   weigh in um to help address the issues I think 
that miss vadin is Raising um and uh certainly   Miss schaer and all the families impacted around 
in Filmore as well and so if we could uh just   remember we have two issues I think our city 
manager took them one by one as an investig   one and in investigation two um I believe we all 
received this report yesterday uh evening that's   when I and so uh late uh I think maybe after 5 or 
6:00 p.m around around that time and uh obviously   we haven't had full 24 hours yet but we've done 
I've done at least my best to get through it   and before uh going over to our city manager 
Council I don't know if you've been able to   spend some time certainly understand if you 
haven't but I've dug in I certainly want to   read some more My Hope was today is that we can 
listen ask questions and continue um that until   our next meeting so with that um does that 
sound okay let our city manager go through   the two uh starting with Filmore Avenue um and 
I just wanted to make the connection that this   is called findings well why are we doing findings 
the specific actions number five for both of them   uh which does speak of recommendations but uh 
the recommendations are forthcoming based on uh   findings and city manager correct me if I'm wrong 
I believe this is from you and our City attorney   is has has not had a chance to go through and 
provide yeah I I can't speak to whether or not   Anthony's reviewed the findings at length um I 
know that he did receive them he was sent them   yesterday I don't know if you had a chance to go 
through them I've done a cursery review of them but understood so today city manager we are all 
in the same I think position as our City attorney   sure if there's not anything else we can go ahead 
and let him begin good thank you city manager   thank you mayor thank you Council um this was 
quite a labor to get through this uh it required   several different lenses to get to the bottom of 
things and several different revisits on on topics   to get down to things what I'm presenting here is 
findings based on where I was specifically looking   which is to say there may be areas that are 
tangentially related to some of these things that   I did not go down that hole discover so I don't 
want to say this is a be all end all this is the   only thing we're ever going to look at and weeks 
from now may uncover more things years from now   may uncover more things this is just a snapshot 
of where this investig these two investigations   uh led me so I wrote down everything here and the 
most objective way possible I'm going to kind of   read through the report as it's presented uh I'll 
probably skip through some things and please feel   free to interrupt if there's any questions we 
can stop we can take a break uh I don't have   any um preconceived request of the council after 
presenting these findings um because Council may   find there there's gaps that we need to get filled 
and look at it again or you might say wow you've   covered everything let's proceed to The Next Step 
which would be recommendations and that would be   a future meeting uh I think we're all going to 
see recommendations are very evident in a lot   of these when you read it that it's pretty obvious 
what the recommendations going to be but we didn't   state it because we want to keep it just to the 
the findings this is what actually happened so   starting at the top um as mayor said it's there's 
two investigations one is about the certificates   of occupancy issued uh for without and complete 
site development work on Filmore and perceptions   of collective selective code enforcement related 
reled to property on Jackson um the goal of the   report is to combine what happened with why it 
happened in an unbiased objective manner as I said   before it does not include recommendations which 
will be forthcoming uh it's laid out generally   chronologically to M to maintain the reports focus 
on the larger picture of actions and reasons for   those actions a great deal of information has been 
sign significantly condensed so that's why some   timeline entries are going to be grouped in months 
with General summ reactions and others are going   to be referenced by specific dates when those 
dates are helpful to have so investigation one   is about the CO's certificat of occupancy issued 
for 304 306 314 and 316 Filmore and what I did is   I there there's four findings we're going to see 
in this item and all four of them I moved them up   front so we can just start with that we're going 
to start with the ending and then we're going to   go back through and see how we got there finding 
number one city code section 110-2 23 B2 requires   site plans to be submitted to the city engineer 
building and code enforcement department Fire   Marshall and Public Works Services Department the 
building and code enforcement department was not   forwarded the site plan submittal so they never 
reviewed it note the building and code enforcement   department no longer exists as a single department 
but that's not a reason to exclude them from site   plan review this is one example of a needed code 
update finding number two is that the C OS were   issued without an affidavit from the engineer of 
record the reason for that there's two building   official was unaware of city code section 110- 221 
which required an engineered site plan for four or   more residential units and therefore an engineer 
of record number two the building official was   unaware that the noted section of the certificate 
of occupancy application was intended to be used   to reinforce city code section 110221 so those two 
things right there Were Meant to capture this and   require an engineer record to sign off the site 
before the cosos were issued the the unawareness   of these of this code and how the seal was to be 
seal application was to be used is what caused the   engineer of record to not be requested to sign off 
before the seals were issued finding number three   the building official did not timely received the 
city engineer's email regarding the incomplete   retention system that was in email the day before 
and the cosos were issued without the building   officials awareness of the issue and finding 
finally finding number four verbal approvals   were relied on from the former city engineer and 
the former public works Services director so those   are the findings now let's go back and rebuild how 
we got to those we start with the investigation   timeline about the site plan the site plan was um 
approved on December 9th 2020 for the four units   Villas Filmore email records indicate the site 
plan submitt was forwarded to the city engineer   the Fire Marshall and Public Works service 
department however the submittal was not forwarded   to the building and code enforcement department 
for review and comment so that is how we got to   finding number one moving on accordingly there was 
no site plan review and comment from the building   official the site plan included an engineered plan 
which included an engineered storm water drainage   system so we have two notes about this The Plan 
called for the inst a of a new storm water inlet   in the area between the driveways of 306 and 314 
not in the driveways and that new Inlet would then   connect to an old existing storm water inlet 
in the approved plans the location of the old   existing storm water inlet which would have been 
located in the driveway of 306 was to be covered   with a concrete lid to accommodate the completion 
of the driveway without a storm water inlet in the   driveway that's the way it was supposed to be 
in the approv plans note two the plan did not   indicate the existence of the FPL pole and the 
handhole which would be in the location of the   drainage soil and we're going to talk about that 
some more too next we have a table that simply   shows the permitting and ownership transfer dates 
we've got the four addresses their permit numbers   the dates the permits were issued the dates of 
final inspection the dates of Co and the date   of sale for each one next section is about the 
storm water system designed deviation during the   construction of the site the owner at the time he 
was interchangeably referred to as the developer   met with the former public works Services director 
and requested a modification to the approved   stormw water drainage plan notably to redirect 
the outfall of the system to the old existing   stormwater Inlet which would be in the driveway 
of 306 Filmore the former public works service's   director verbally approved the request and no 
documentation was submitted reviewed or approved   it was simply a verbal approval then we move 
into issuance of cos's August 5th the former city   engineer provided a memo to the staff indicating 
that he had completed an inspection and noted   certain site improvements were not in compliance 
with the approved storm water system design and   that he needed additional information 11 days 
later or 12 days later it was either August   16th or 17th the former city engineer performed a 
site inspection at 314 and 316 Filmore and on the   August 16th or 17th the former city engineer 
provided verbal confirmation to the building   official that the site work was acceptable for 
all four units 304 306 314 and 316 we have no   documentation of this this was a statement made 
by the building official that he received verbal   approval from the former city engineer August 
17th 2022 having passed all in inspections as   well as receiving the former city engineer's 
verbal approval the building official issued   the cosos for 314 and 316 Filmore fast forward to 
October 5th the former city engineer conducted a   site inspection at 306 Filmore and this was at the 
request of the pending owner Hurst and provided   a memo to cned staff indicating the detention 
system had not been constructed properly note   the building official did not initiate the 
former city engineers uh inspection and was   not anticipating a coming Memo from the former 
city engineer at the time next day October 6 the   building official issued the cosos for 304 and 306 
Filmore and he was relying on the previous verbal   approval from the former city engineer which he 
said was acceptable for all four units these are   the statements of the building official October 
7th the building official received the former   city Engineers October 5th 22 email regarding 
the improper constructed detention system so at   this point the horse the horse is out of the 
barn all four CEOs are issued and now he has   documentation that there was a problem with the 
detention system the next day subsequent to that   the building official the former city engineer 
and the cned director discussed the former city   Engineers October 5th email and they elected 
to pursue an after theact compliance for the   corrective action needed for the detention system 
and we're going to talk about how the code uh   refers to that as well continuing timeline during 
the months from October 22 from February to   February 23 uh various site meetings and inspected 
inspections were conducted among and between cned   staff the former city engineer and the developer 
correspondence was forwarded among the new owners   the developer cned staff the engineer of record 
Allen engineering mayor Morrison and city manager   Morley that's me the developer began attempts to 
resolve the outstanding issues to the construction   of the storm water system Sy this was now an 
after theact effort and unsuccessful attempts   at correcting the Swale were undertaken by the 
developer note the location of the FPL pole and   handhole were in the were in the designated Swale 
area at this time the Swale was constructed with a   jog or a bump out around the pole and the handhole 
this was not shown in the approved engineer   drawing additionally some work had been performed 
to move the location of the sale at 314 and 16   the developer was instructed by cned director that 
if this reconfiguration of the Swale would indeed   Remain the city would require this reconfiguration 
to be evaluated and approved by the engineer of   record and then reflected in the ad his Adil as 
built docs the developer indicated he would cause   the improvements to be made with the oversight of 
the E the developer contacted the E and requested   he assist by placing appropriately marked stakes 
in the sale to guide the corrective action   moving on to the month of March of 23 the stakes 
were placed by the engineer of record uh and then   the mayor city manager and C director visited the 
site at this time it was noted that the FP poll   and handhole should not be there as all utilities 
serving the new development are required to be   placed underground then in the months between 
April 23 and January 24 the developer realizing   he needed to have the FPL work done prior to 
completing the storm water work was instructed   to cont FPL staff worked with the developer and 
FPL to request the removal of the pole and the   undergrounding of the utilities FPL made two 
attempts to perform the necessary work both   unsuccessful January 19th 2024 city manager spoke 
with FPL external Affairs manager in an attempt   to prioritize the necessary utility work January 
23rd to the developer corresponded with cned staff   reaffirming his intention to complete the drainage 
soil work and the next page January 24th this was   just prior to the council meeting that was to be 
held that evening city manager held a meeting with   the building official and the CN cned director and 
we reviewed the co applications for the properties   a particular section of the co application was 
discussed in this section it states Engineers or   Architects statement that the site construction 
is in accordance with the approved site plan and   that all construction has been in compliance 
with applicable codes next to this statement   is a blank space a line and that underneath it is 
for the building official to put the date that the   engineer's record engineer record statement is 
received under this section is a clarifying note   the above requirements pertain to multif family 
over three units and all commercial projects it   was explained that the intent of the form is to 
ensure that the building official receives the   engineer of Records approval statement by noting 
the date that the E sub adits documentation that   the site had been constructed in compliance with 
the approved engineered site plan I just want to   add that that seal application is the same seal 
application that was there when I was building   official in the early 2000s it's unchanged 
it's the same form so I'm very familiar with it the building official was questioned as a what 
as to why he wrote per John parar in the blank for   the date he responded that this was his typical 
procedure for single family resident cosos it   was discussed that there was an engineer of record 
for the project Allen engineering the question was   asked why not request the E statement the building 
official responded he did not know why there was a   need for an e because these were single family 
residences he was directed to the city code   section 110- 221 which provides the following 
and this is just a copy and a paste section   110221 is called submitt in review required in 
section A it says under this chapter site plan   subm mittle and staff review shall be required for 
all development and Redevelopment projects except   single family two family or three family dwelling 
units or alterations theto and minor commercial   improvements and it adds further site plan submitt 
and planning and zoning Board review is required   for the following the first is new commercial 
buildings or structures and the second is new   residential structures with four or more dwelling 
units building official at that time stated he   was unaware of city code section 110- 221 which 
required an engineered site plan for four or more   residential units and the building official stated 
he was unaware that the noted section of the co   application was intended to be used to reinforce 
this section of city code then we had the January   24th city council meeting uh we discussed this 
item Council reached consensus on several key   actions toward a resolution as recorded in the 
minutes of note the new city engineer Kim Le horn   Associates was tasked with evaluating the current 
status and making recommendations to ensure city   codes related to site development are followed 
January 25th the following day we held a meeting   in my office between Mr bz who's the contractor 
Mr whiten who's the owner developer the mayor   I'm sorry the former owner and developer the mayor 
the cned department director and the city manager   steps toward completion were communicated to all 
parties um on January 30th FPL Crews installed the   underground electrical service in April of 2024 
the building official submitted his resignation   letter in a subsequent discussion with the city 
manager and Department director he restated his   position that he viewed four units as single 
family residences and thereby not requiring   a site plan and engineered common storm storm 
water drainage system or an engineer of record   when when again question about the language of 
city code 110221 the building official provided   the following the four units are viewed from 
the perspective of the Florida building code   as single family residences and were permitted as 
such he said the four units were infill lots in   a long-established subdivision and not subject 
to site plan related code requirements and he   stated single family residences only require 
the city Engineers approval prior to issuing   a CO when questioned as to what his understanding 
of city code section 110- 221 where it references   new residential structures with former dwelling 
units building official stated he interprets this   to mean new residential structures with four or 
more attached dwelling units meaning Under One Roof a note city code section 110-121 provides 
that issuance of a CO shall not be construed as   an approval of a violation of the previous of 
the provisions of the city code or any other   applicable law so this SE section of code uh 
supports and after the fact completion of the   site work which is still ongoing next note I 
want to point out is city code section 110-91   provides that use Arrangement Construction 
and design at variance with those authorized   by the plan specifications intended uses and 
applications shall be deemed a violation of   this chapter and shall authorize the building 
official to revoke or suspend any previously   issued building permits or c or pursue any 
other remedy necessary to carry out his or   her duties under the chapter under this chapter 
and other applicable law my comment on that is   that the building official stated that he 
W he understood that he had the authority   to suspend or revoke the cosos but because the 
units were now occupied and the developer and   the contractor indicated their desire to cause the 
needed work to be completed the building official   did not exercise this option so that leads me to 
finding number two the cosos were issued without   an affidavit from the e because the building 
official was unaware of city code section   110221 which required the engineered site plan 
and therefore an e and the second part of that   the building official was unaware that the noted 
section of the co application was intended to be   used to reinforce that same code section that's 
the reason the cosos were issued um the building   official did not finding number three the 
building official did not timely receive the   city engineer email regarding the incomplete ret 
retention system and the cosos were issued without   the building officials awareness of the issue 
and finally number finding number four verbal   approvals were relied on from the former city 
engineer and the former public works Services   director mayor that's what happened in this case 
that's what got us to where we are thank you very   much Council if today we can capture questions 
um maybe some we can get answered are there any   uh on these are uh so this is Filmore where at 
50:6 p.m. there's four findings for Filmore um   Jackson Avenue has estimated 10 maybe to 12 yeah 
okay and so I think I would like to go through   with with the council one the four um and and see 
if there's any questions at this time and knowing   we've got Jackson coming with more um we'll try to 
manage time appropriately so Council any general   questions or specific to the findings let's start 
with number one Mr Mayor yes mayor protim yeah I   have a few questions um so it it states that the 
um the building official didn't know or didn't   understand the code um it seems to me like he just 
interpreted it different than it should have been   or it could have been um and then my why did he I 
mean if if it comes out where he's interpreting it   different from the engineer what happens where's 
the process for that I mean it's it's not like   he didn't know about it he just to me it seems 
like he interpreted it different and I I have   the letter from the um the assistant building 
official and he stated the same thing that um   calling these structures multif family dwellings 
versus town home has created a false impression   that a drainage plan was required town homes 
are considered single family and single family   residents are exempt from these requirements of a 
drainage plan and then also going through this um   kimley and horn in their um report called it two 
duplex buildings containing four dwelling units   so structure to me is one building so there's two 
buildings with two units in each of them so how   is that four or more um dwelling units under the 
same Roof then I think that that would kick in I   mean I'm asking to try to understand this um and 
then my next question is on August 5th 2022 the   engineer um city engineer did an inspection and 
noted that certain site improvements were were   not in compliance with the approved storm water 
drainage system so from that time to um August   17th when the co was given for 314 316 mayor P 
Tim are you on page two on the table help our city   clerk who I think is helping us thank you very 
much so it's says that he didn't timely get the   email from August 5th to August 17th he didn't get 
an email it that was referring to the October 5th   email okay so then that the um so on August 5th 
when he said um you know there's a problem with   the system the drain storm water it applied to 
the whole building I mean what I don't understand   why it wasn't timely when it was from August 5th 
to October 6th for the second occupancy the same   problem was there in the whole site except that 
on August 16th or 17th there's an entry a bullet   point that says the former city engineer provided 
verbal confirmation to the building official that   the site work was acceptable for all four 
units so what changed from the 5th to the 16th this week we received uh an email from 
Mr whak that I believe talks about that and   I don't have that in front of me right here 
but what I recall he said in that email was   that they had constructed the Swale and then 
FPL came in to install underground lines and   in so doing they messed it all up um and 
that he was trying to work with fpnl to   fix it and it and it did not get fixed 
prop properly um so that would explain   why between August 5th and August 16th the 
city engineer went out there at some point   and said it was good because that's when 
that work must have taken place and then   subsequent to August 16th or 17th must 
be when FPL went out there and dug it all up okay so then just going back to if the 
building official interpreted the code wrong um is there a procedure that happens if 
there's a disagreement between what the code says   and what the bu building official um thinks yeah 
and to begin with um when I met with the building   official on January 24th his statement on that day 
was that he was unaware of that code section so   there wasn't an interpretation issue he he studied 
that he was unaware of it the interpretation issue   Came Upon the building official submitting his 
resignation letter at that time the some months   had passed from January to April he um evidently 
had some time to review this code section and he   now indicated that he doesn't think that it is 
being a interpreted appropriately and that's   could it be that I mean I'm again just asking 
when the former city engineer he said it was   okay because the building official said 
we really don't need that because it's   not you know what I'm saying like no he the 
building official told the engineer that they   don't even need a drainage plan so why is 
it important just give him the CEO I mean   I don't know that the building official told 
the former city engineer that we don't need a   drainage plan um he may or may not have said that 
to him but when it what the building official was   saying is when it comes to single family homes his 
routine was he just wanted this the city engineer   to sign off and that was good enough and that 
was being kind of blind to the fact that hey this   project received a site plan there's an engineered 
site plan with a common drainage facility for all   four it's kind of being blind to that to say NOP 
we're just going to require the city engineer for   each one so there's the same exact um contractor 
is building houses same thing on Jefferson do they   have a the water storm water that it's two 
buildings that occupany that's not the sub   of this report of findings but we can talk 
about that mayor if you like well I'm just asking and is your question uh the procedures 
followed for this development on Jefferson Avenue   how are they different right I I I'm okay okay um 
it's relevant I know that um City attorney has um   talked to the department director about that he 
talked to me briefly about it and and I would   just soon turn it over to the City Attorney 
At this point to talk about the difference   between Filmore and Jefferson in the development 
that's happening there why they're why they're different Miss F Nomine is there a point 
of order information I will open up public comments okay you want to speak I'd like to give the 
council the chance to to all finish speaking if uh I'd like to let finish if it can wait 
we'll certainly make sure your your questions heard thank you City attorney um I've talked to I talked to the city manager 
I've spoken to Community Development and I've   read or understand you the basic facts here in 
my view there's a major distinction between What   hap what's happening on Jefferson and Phil Moore 
Phil Moore was ploted as a townhouse project for   townhouse lots and is subject to declarations and 
restrictions and Covenants as a unified project   so there were clearly four residential units being 
constructed at the same time while they may be in   two different buildings two units two residential 
units per building they're they're a unified   project and that's the way the staff um in my 
opinion rightfully reviewed it as four residential   dwelling units um Don Jefferson on the other hand 
if you recall um that property was zon commercial   the the property owner at the time when it came 
into the City and reson the property I believe the   R2 which is um allows for detached single family 
homes as well as duplexes that property owner at   the time ploted three lots um without any any um 
building plans that were you know fully developed   and presented to the staff so when that plat was 
approved there were three individual lots that   could be used for either detach single family 
homes because they were adequate size or they   could be used for a duplex consistent with R2 
zoning and um they don't have declarations and   Covenants um they were not being developed as a 
unified hole um the properties have since been   the lots have been conveyed to multiple owners who 
have the option to either do detach single family   homes or or a duplex two of the property owners 
my understanding is currently sought building   permits coincidentally right around the same time 
using the the same developer but those property   owners are constructing uh duplexes there's a 
third lot that's undeveloped my understanding   is at least the last time I talked to staff maybe 
two weeks ago there weren't any building permits   submitted so that could either be a det attach 
single family home or a duplex depending on what   the property owner wants to do with the property 
so I mean I think there're a little bit of apples   and oranges um between Filmore and Jefferson 
in my view um the type of project and then it   goes to the provision that that the staff or the 
manager laid out in the report which talks about   when there are was it three or four more units 
they have to go through the the site plan process so is there a code for this this townhouse like 
you're saying in the commercial how is there a   code in our ordinances that talks about this that 
I could read there's a Code there's a site plan   section of the code that talks about um when 
a site plan is is required and then then there   was a platting process and um coun considers 
you know plats when they're submitted um and   some some may be tow houses some may not be um 
it's property owner's prerogative when they when   they submit the plat application how they want 
to subdivide the property By plot okay thank you here per Tim Kellum thank you uh just 
do you have any more I want to summarize   the one you asked if you have more please keep 
going no I don't I don't think so I I just um   wanted to understand you know the difference 
between August 5th when the engineer went out   there and said it wasn't right and then August 
17th the time I'm just confused about that but   um no I'm good thank you okay yes City attorney 
yeah the the manager reminded me you know when   you look at the distinction between Jefferson and 
Filmore when when when Filmore was was platted and   declarations and Covenants were um put together 
it was all done with a common common drainage uh   system for that townhouse project on the other 
hand on Jefferson their three lots there there   were aren't any declarations or covenants with 
a common dream drainage plan okay now under the   code and I think the just by way of example 
remember the council there was there's an   infill house going on in being constructed in 
um in haror Heights right and we were talking   about the elevation of the house and so forth 
individual lots are subject to a onesie type   um storm Order review by the staff to ensure 
that that individual lot and think Engineers   that can correct me contain the uh storm water 
for that particular development on one lot so   while there may not be a common drainage facility 
um on the three Jefferson Lots each of those lots   must have adquate storm water system for that 
lot that cover the storm water issue thank you   so mayor per Tim the cour question on August 5th 
uh related to the bottom of page two right where   our um exactly where it's showing on the screen 
in front of us you're to uh was it August 7th or   or what was the date you're asking about from it 
said that he did not timely get the email and I'm   wondering the engineer sent it on the 5th and the 
occupancy wasn't until occupancy um of August yes   was on the 6th of October there was the first 
two were August and then the second two were October so if I could help recap August 5th the 
city engineer said there's a problem sometime   between August 5th and August 16th or 17th 
the problem was fixed according to the email   from the developer on August 5th and I know you 
said but I he provided a memo it wasn't a verbal   and you're saying the next Point August 16th 
and 17th sometime between the memo of August   5th and August 16th or 17th the developer is 
indicated in an email that we received this   week that corrective that the the storm 
water Swale was constructed properly and you're saying October 6 now are 
you on the next page right so   August 5th engineer says there's 
a problem the Swale work gets done correctly where's that that's in the email from 
that I said we got this week from the developer   what he what he's trying to do is piece together 
the rest of the story for us that that I didn't   have access to the email came from the developer 
this week it was Council was copied on it well I think okay I'm F yes I have that 
letter yeah so what he's what he's   trying to say if I understand his 
intention correctly is after August   th they had this will constructed properly 
that is why on August 16th or 17th former   city engineer provided verbal confirmation to 
the building official that the site work was acceptable so the so on August 17th two of 
the four cosos get issued based on that verbal   approval and then some happened according to the 
developer with FPL doing workoutside in the back   to install lines that messed up part of that 
Swale system presumably through the West End   the West two units but he only issued cosos 
according to this at the very bottom of page   two for 314 and 316 in August yes in August right 
so August 16 so that basically that same day when   he performed a phys physical site inspection 
at 314 and 316 he did not perform one at 306 the the building official statement and 
the bullet above that is that the engineer   provided verbal confirmation to him that 
the site work was acceptable for all four units the memo on August 5th is pertaining to 306 
and I just want to capture mayor PM's question is right it it's related to 306 largely so I 
mean it would make sense if he approved the   other ones but I think 306 and 
304 at least still haven't got cosos are we saying that his inspection 
on the 16th and the 17th was related to   no it says it's not related to 306 
right on the the one bullet point   that's the first one the second one 
up from the bottom says August 16th   or 17th former city engineer provided verbal 
confirmation to the building official site   work was acceptable for all four units but he 
didn't inspect it that day how could he say   you see what I'm saying the bullet above it says 
on the 16th and 17th the city engineer performed   a site inspection at 314 and 316 yes and and then 
the next day he provides verbal confirmation that   the work was acceptable how could it not be I 
mean for where he did not expect this is the   statement this is the statement of the building 
official the building official said that he   approved all four units verbally even though the 
bullet above says he only inspected 314 and 316   he says the the verbal confirmation he got from 
the city engineer were the all four units were good Mr Mayor yes council member Willis so 
city manager you're basically just stating   in here that he just didn't acknowledge that 
he uh inspected 304 and 306 he just went on   the assumption that all four were ready to go 
all I can go off of is I've got a document that   says he performed an aight inspection on 314 
and 316 and I've had a statement that he said   all four units are good to to go okay so you're 
just relating to us the information available to   me his claims his comments yes sir you have a 
document stating what was the document related   to 314 and 316 yes that the former city engineer 
performed a site inspection there where is that document I have the August 5th 
letter that was in bsna it does   not specify it specifies Villas 
at Filmore doesn't I don't see any addresses and it's talking about the 
detention the this is a part of what   kimley and Horn I think looked at as well 
and he lists five issues he's talking about   at large are you is there a document for 
August 16 or or for 314 and 316 related   to those I may have misspoke when I said 
there's a document that could have been   the building official's statement to me Dave 
can you Pro provide any Clarity there so the   the last written document was the August 5th 
letter okay so then it must have been the   building official statement I I stand corrected 
mayor okay so on a August 5th he provided the memo I'm not even going to just it's five 
it's a letter and on the six so that letter   was sitting there this is I think mayor 
Pro Jim's question with the issues the   five issues 10 days later he goes out to the 
site does the inspection but there's nothing   written that the city has ever received from 
his in inspection correct but it's specific   that the inspection was to 314 and 316 how do 
we know that these are statements the building   official made the building official told is 
telling us that on August 16th and 17th the   engineer performed a site inspection for those 
two addresses and then that that same day he says   all looks good on all the addresses okay but 
the issues that were brought up prior were   related to 306 a lot of them so I think mayim's 
question I share is the issues related to 306   he put in writing he goes out and inspects 
but we don't ever receive any closure on 306 verbally uh and if he did did he provide 
verbal confirmation without an inspection   according to our building official it sounds 
like we don't know we just so our building   official say and he received for those two 
addresses mayor it may help I think if we try   to connect these dots August 17th is when the 
cosos were issued for 314 and 316 it would   make sense that the building official would 
request the former city engineer perform a   sight inspection on the day before for 
314 and6 because they were nearing Co   okay that's why he was sent out there to look 
at 314 and 316 that makes sense yeah that's   exactly what happened okay so while he's 
there evidently the city engineer looks at   all four units and says hey not only are 314 
and 316 good to go but 304 and 306 are as well okay and then on a October 5th August 
September a couple months later why is there   a sight inspection being conducted at 306 
that was at the request of a pending owner   um I believe that pending owner was aware 
that something had changed in the backyard   and things were no longer right so that owner 
with that concerned contacted the city engineer   unbeknownst to the building official and 
requested the city engineer come out and   take a look at it city engineer went out took a 
look at it and said yeah there this is this is a   problem and he sends an email to the building 
official and other members of Staff saying   hey there's a problem out there he sends a memo a 
written the second memo yeah via email right well   and it was uh yeah I think it's the October 5th 
and so if he requested inspections if he initiated   the inspection so that he could issue the co 
for the two addresses I would assume he would   initiate for 306 but in this case in 304 he did 
not it was from the property owner but how would   he what I guess it's it's does it make sense why 
he would have not just went ahead and issued all   four cosos at that time that's because the inside 
of the buildings probably weren't done for the   other two at this time that's correct but he uh 
despite the external issues in the memo the month   prior from August you're saying that okay so the 
building official said says that the August 5th   letter did was verbally stated to be corrected by 
the the the engineer by the 16th or 17th of August yes and he did not issue a building while 
engineering the our city engineer was satisfied   we're saying there were internal issues is that 
what he said or what we're assuming there would   be a reason why the Builder didn't ask 
for cosos on 304 and 306 until October   6th I don't know what that reason was but 
probably having to do with something other   than the site there sometimes houses get done 
inside maybe the painting is done or the trim   work is being done wouldn't that be in the 
notes though from any issues from the other inspections how would we know there were things 
not finished the Builder can call for a SE   anytime he wants but he's not going to call 
for it unless he has achieved an approved final   inspection so why did why had he not achieved 
an approved final inspection until October 6th   I I don't know okay you know perhaps he's only got 
so many subcontractors that can only work so fast   they got these two units done first and they got 
these two un units done second okay thank you I am um I think that's a that's one that 
I that question may for Tim asked I   I I agree does it make sense to me and 
this is as the building official has stated mayor ptim you had brought about 
the duplex four units why are we calling   it four our City attorney I think gave a 
the verbal explanation to that August and is that it for now for you thank you thank you 
Council a question yes council member Jackson   try to make sure I'm understanding this correctly 
so as I look at the asilt and the the occurrences   dates and all of this I'm trying to understand 
when you're look standing looking at the property   I know 306 is there on the left and there's a 
grass area in between it in the next unit I'm   not sure what unit number that next unit is 34 314 
thank you um and on 314 it was approved but we had   swell issues because SW the swell was corrected 
at that time anyway so I'm trying to understand   that piece of it because that was one of the ones 
that they worked on the swell and it was actually   further back on the units in the unit's yard 
closer to where it should have originally been   than 306 so I'm trying to understand just like 
you all were talking about with 306 and the other   one I know there were some other window issues 
and some things like that I believe that were corrected but Todd I mean have um city manager 
have you any insight on that piece of it I   recall that the owners the excuse me the owners 
of 314 and 316 had requested I believe that the   sale be pushed a little further north at 
some point and I I believe that was done   okay and I'm not exactly when that was done not 
sure when that was done but I think the the thing   that the building official is focusing me on 
is on August 16th or 17th the city engineer was   satisfied that all of the retention looked good 
okay and then he he kept that fact in his mind as   he started issuing the first two cosos and then 
two months later the second two cosos that was   still in his mind but we know that something had 
to have happened in those that period of time that   messed things up and that's what I'm trying to 
determine because um from the developer's letter   you know he's saying well let me ask first the we 
know that the swell was in the original approval   of the site plan right okay and we know whose 
responsibility ultimately is coordinating that   pole removal because he does mention in his letter 
that the pole was there before they bought the   property but the code at the time was for all 
facilities to be underground correct yes okay   and so that right there kicks off a problem with 
the the swell because of the existing power line   locations and the Hand hole is at the base of 
the pole that extends into the sale too okay so   that also is something how did that get missed by 
us to where we weren't looking or were we let me   ask this were we looking and trying to advise 
the Builder this is going to have to be moved   is that something that we should do well my best 
guess on that I I I have had that same question I   looked back to the preow inspection and the preow 
inspection is an inspection that is done when the   house is ready to be energized all the switches 
and receptacles and cover plates are in place the   meter can looks really good and the inspector is 
called out to do a preow inspection and he does   that um I'm not sure of the dates of it but they 
were before this and he proves that and when you   approve the preow inspection the building official 
then goes and uh sends a message to fpl they're   ready for meter and hookup energize them so at 
that time it's very likely the pole was the old   pole was there but the Swale was constructed 
properly on or around that time and then and   it looks good CD engineer looks at it says it 
looks good and then some days or weeks later   FPL shows up to energize those homes they bring 
in new overhead lines from this pole to that   pole they come down this pole they have to add a 
hand hole to get it underground and that builds   it out into the sale and kind of messes up the 
sale and then they start digging all the lines   to run them underground to the houses from 
there which explains why the sailes would   have been messed up by that work right so I 
guess my question is how we would um prevent it getting to that late stage of the game 
and us becoming aware that the facilities   aren't underground that's why an 
engineer of record statement that   the site was built in compliance should 
have been required before the cosos were issued okay thank you that was one of 
my questions because um yes the Swale   could be messed up while you're burying you 
know infrastructure like that and you know I   want to make sure that as we go forward 
with projects in this city that we have   a handle on that prior to that point because 
that costs everyone it can also delay a move   in for a resident that's looking wanting to 
get their occupancy permits and and this just   goes ties right in hand in hand with that 
there's this common drainage facility for   all four units and the fact that the building 
official can say a site plan is not required   is is hard to understand because that's one of 
the elements of the site plan requirement is   an engineer drainage system and that's why not 
having that engineer certification at the time   of Co that this unit is 100% good to go and 
electrical power would have been that's the   way it should have been done but instead there 
was no engineer of record final certification   it was a city engineer giving a verbal approval 
that all four are good to go on a certain day   and maybe they were on a certain date but that's 
before they were energized then they get energized   and now things get muddied up and messed up and 
he's just remembering that verbal approval fast   forward two more months to October he still 
got that in his head and he issues the cosos   for those two after they get powered up without 
going and looking and seeing there's a problem out back okay and then another question I had was in 
regards to the email that they didn't receive or   they received to late um in bsnf or whatever 
systems we have currently are there ways to   trigger this so that you I mean that seems like 
a systems issue that needs to be addressed if   some if we're having to rely manually on making 
sure the right information is passed along to   the correct officials and there are systems that 
you know systems can usually sometimes help with   those things there's there's definitely going 
to be a lot of recommendations that come out of   this but one of the first things that's the the 
stronger recommendation in my opinion is the co   application has to be used as it's intended 
to be used which is you have to have this   engineer certification before you even consider 
issuing the co if you have that document you're   looking for it you're going to be scouring your 
emails looking for that document just so you can   process the co so this was more human error 
yes and and and lack of understanding of how   the form was intended to be used do we have a 
copy of that form um there's not one here today   but there's hundreds thousands of them in laser 
fish do we have the the the form we can get that   form is this the same form that was marked um it 
was used but it wasn't used under the intent I   think that you talked about is that it's the 
co application form it wasn't used as it was   intended there's a blank there the building 
official is supposed to write the date that   this the engineer of record certification was 
received put the date in there and there's a   clarifying note under underneath that that says 
hey you only have to do this when it's a new   commercial project or three or more than three 
residential units it's a clarifying note it makes   it very clear what that whole section is about 
it's it's the top third of the back page of the co application build out by the applicant no the 
the building officials they need is the one who   writes in the date that he received the engineer 
of record certification he's the one supposed to   write that date in there because this is the 
building officials tool that we're not missing   anything before we issue the co so this is an 
internal form that City we use y yep there's   several things on that um the the first page has 
got you know the address the permit number all   that stuff and then it's got us a line for the 
the Fire Marshall to sign off if if appropriate   uh you flip over on the back side and here's this 
engineer statement right in the date right in the   date you receive it that section and underneath 
that is a lot of check marks for you know was um   the sidewalks done Plumbing final B billing 
final mechanical final uh hydrant service   approved by fire department there's a lot of 
little checks in there the building official   goes through and at the end if if the building 
official is satisfied that everything is met   on the front page he signs it at the bottom 
that it's all complete and then that gets   handed to the administrative assistant 
who actually prepares the certificate of occupancy do we have a date for when the Swale 
will actually be completed I mean the last time   I went out it was still kind of off kilter and 
and FPL was on the way or no FPL had just been   there yeah I think fpl's done now um although 
there's a question I think it was raised at   the last council meeting about the location 
of their lines and the depth of their lines   which we've we've relayed that to fpnl that 
hey you know what do we do about this concern   if there's a concern how do we deal with that 
as far as the Swale work being done the the   developer and the contractor were instructed that 
whatever work you're going to get done out there   needs to be by a permit and will issue a permit 
and whatever that permit drawing is needs to be   in an engineered drawing that will be submitted to 
our city engineer for review and then we'll issue   the permit so they're trying to get that drawing 
when asked why they don't want to just use the   original drawing because we would still use the 
original drawing they said they want to see if   they can get it approved with some changes from 
the approved drawing so the inlet was supposed   to be 24 the box and then now it's 12 or something 
something like that there's some changes that they   want to see if they can get incorporated into 
this revised document what we said was whatever   revised document you submit it's going to have to 
be reviewed by kimley horn to make sure it meets   our code so they're trying to get that revised 
document okay and so the one of the changes is   the size of that drawing in the middle between the 
two units it's going to have to be addressed by   the for the code for Code Compliance right and I'm 
not sure what are you sure I'll I'll go back and   look but I'm wondering what kimly horn recommended 
or if they just noted the original size you noted   the deviation from the plan okay um I don't know 
if they said anything more than that Lexi do you recall council member are you referring to the 
yard drain located between the two structures   MH uh so they did not make a comment on whether or 
not it would need to be sized up that 15in minimum   is typical for what's considered subdivisions um 
so what was put in there was a 12 in they would   have to do basically a larger storm water model 
and Analysis to figure out if a larger drain is   needed for there so right now their recommendation 
is they don't have a recommendation to size it up   at this time they're more um the recommendations 
are more about the swes and the cross sections   in the area and that aligning with what Todd was 
explaining um with building it uh like reworking   that site to accommodate what was initially 
approved okay and that's kimmerly Horn's Rec   so yeah they they noted that you know the so what 
was initially proposed in the design plans as well   as what was in the as builts was 12 in so from 
the beginning the city engineer approved a 12inch   drain as opposed to a 15inch to make that clear 
it wasn't a deviation from proposed to built it   was a deviation from typically what was in the 
code um but from the beginning it was proposed   to be 12 in and it was installed as 12 in okay 
that's very good to know thank you um also um   what about the drain location at the street is 
that one of the changes are trying to get they   provided two recommendations for that um potential 
but again this is all dependent on on kind of how   the the site plan um amendments flush out either 
maintaining the current location and raising that   the elevation of the inlet that's there now the 
current location being in the the driveway ride   of way or to relocate it back to the designed 
location in the design plans um and modifying   that existing structure so they there's two 
recommendations there if if that um concern   is to be addressed okay so um I'm repeating to 
make sure I have it because I'm writing slow um so put it back to the original design or raise 
the drain okay yeah Council made um an additional   statement mayor if I could repeat it please 
Council said we prefer the location to be in   the space between the I'm going to call it the 
the mailbox area um if possible it would be the   approved but if it can't be please explain why 
it can't be if there's some difficult thing to   overcome and making it go there let us know but 
that's the preferred location so the council came   up with that at the last meeting I believe 
so that's been relay to uh the developer as   well that's correct okay um and just trying to 
get an idea when I'm trying to get an idea of   when we can look at Ford motion on getting 
this resolved but I know we're waiting for   them to file permits am I correct and they're 
waiting on engineering it's it's one permit   um with one engineered document that we're 
waiting for and the ball's in their Court   I'm not sure exactly what difficulties 
they're encountering but we're keeping   the updates coming out to council um 
once or twice a week at this point okay thank you thank you uh council 
member Davis council member Willis comments let's do this I got a few comments we're 
right at I think an hour let's take at least five   minutes 10 minutes break I think we can try to 
conclude any questions to move on and then we can   shift over to Jackson Avenue and we can so that we 
ensure we get through all of it um so let's try to reconvene 6 o'clock quick 5 seven 
minute break okay good see you back then e e e e e e e e e e e e e e sec e e we'll get started here in just a minute okay Council we ready to go okay it is 6:03 p.m. we are call the meeting 
back to order uh we are on the first half   call it of the uh findings report provided by 
our city manager we just had a chance to hear him   provide them go through we've got some initial 
questions I think we're working through really   want to make sure any questions that we don't have 
a clear answer on today we try to communicate uh   and that may be none at this point and between 
now and the next council meeting we'll have more   time I think to to address uh it is a longer 
report and so um I think we got a chance to go   through the council at this time there was none I 
do have a few council member Willis no okay uh so the if I underst council member Jackson's question   about the Swale in the timing of the preow 
request the swell for my understanding is was not finished when FPL came in and I 
think we had pictures and emails coming over   from the property owners showing this that that 
wasn't the case I want to make sure I understood   and are we saying the sale well I'm trying 
to piece things together with the with the   developers email from this week but the only 
thing that I can really stand on that I can   say firmly as our building official has stood 
by his statement that on August 16th or SE 17th   the city engineer provided verbal communication 
that all site work was acceptable for all four units being an honorable man I take him at his word okay so the were the swailes complete prior 
to fpl coming in or were the swes incomplete   the email from Mr whak would indicate that 
the swailes were complete or at least near   complete um certainly in a better condition 
um and then when FPL came along subsequent   to that they were put in a poor condition 
by FPL but did our I understand Mr in our   timelines that we were not involved in that 
I know we're talking about with the developer   sent over or at the time I assumed the 
property owner y um but our building inspector did not know all we had was what Mr 
I mean did we I guess I'm confused on why we're   depending on Mr Whit's letter I'm not I'm relying 
on the building official statement that's the only   one I can put my sink my teeth into which is that 
the swailes were completed yeah all site work was   acceptable for all four units but the utilities 
were still in the air instead of underground   so actually I I think what was in the air was 
not even for these I think that the I think I   think I was wrong when I said that was a new poll 
because I've seen some other pictures and I think   that poll was there before so I I would agree with 
the building officials Asser assertion on that I   would also agree that there were lines coming to 
that poll but those certainly were not lines that   tended for four brand new town homes because that 
poll has the Transformer on it so four service   drops have to come from that Transformer those 
were not there were not four service drops going   across to that pole there was some other line 
up there for some other reason some former use   I don't know but the FPL would had no reason to 
do four service drops many years ago to that poll   so the poll was there with some unknown utility 
lines over over connecting it and then when we   said all new lines are required to be Underground 
that's true whether it's new or redeveloping but   certainly there were new lines brought in 
at that point those new lines all had to be underground those lines from that pole that 
existed prior to each individual meter had   to be underground and I think those always 
have been underground there there's two poles   there's one at the very northwest corner of the 
property okay and that's where the Transformer is   and then there's a secondary poll kind of in the 
middle between Lots two and three the pole was   there some overhead utility line was connecting 
those two poles don't know what that was for but   there were not four separate service drops coming 
off of this transformer for four new homes there   would not have been there was no reason for that 
to be those four new service drops were done as   a result of this new development those four new 
service drops needed to be completely underground   from the point of the Transformer and that's where 
they are now that it's been fixed it's done right   now that part of it's done right the Transformer 
is the one on the northwest corner what's the pole   that existed it was just car it was carrying some 
utility line I I have a guess um the condominium   that's to the north there's a concrete pad there 
m my guess is maybe there was a building on that   pad at one point that maybe was served by that 
pole at some point the building's gone but maybe   the lines just remained as an artifact but they 
ran their lines from that underground where the   hand hole was not only that they ran new lines 
from the Transformer to that secondary pole and   then from that secondary pole down underground 
to a hand hole and there from there to the house   so that part of underground that's always been 
underground they don't run for o overhead lines   to each one of the dwelling units right yeah 
yeah but it had they had to redo them because   now they're going to take this pole out they're 
going back to the Transformer now no I understand   that I'm think I'm saying that when they when they 
put those lines in from that secondary pole that   we're calling it those lines were underground yeah 
from my understanding the Swale was not complete   at that point from all the records going back 
to the emails they went underground and it the   backyard was flat at that point the photographs 
getting the emails showed it and so when we talked   about having that Swale done and then FPL comes 
in not at that stage from from my understanding   and that's something that Mr whak or Mr Bas is 
going to have to clarify because I don't have that   information I wasn't there at the time and I don't 
know that the building official was there at the   time which is why I keep relying on the the city 
engineer said all four were good on August 16th   or 17th because none of that matters if the city 
engineer said they're all good on August 16th or 17th but we don't have any evidence of that 
correct just the verbal statement of the   building official but not have we asked the city 
engineer did you ask because it's according to   building officials verbal he didn't provide any evidence 
that no I don't know if you could you   know that's that's verbal but 
does the city engineer say I   gave verbal approval I haven't asked 
him that but what's evident is he he   didn't give written approval because 
if he had it would have been in that record but he did provide written concern on 
August 15 August 5th and do and did did he   ever provide written approval after the concern 
so his letters address so he'll put in writing   the issue and then when they're resolved they're 
verbal yep that's one of my findings that should   that's that that is not we have not spoke to Mr 
parar about that Lexi do you have any information   on that point I don't um and I don't I don't 
want to speak for for d without knowing uh if   and when he's reached out to Mr parar in the 
past I haven't been privy to it if that's the case I just need to stay up here um yes 
I have spoken to Mr car Marc about this   exact issue and requested in uh if he 
put anything in writing and he didn't   recall he was going to go through his 
documents this conversation probably   occurred about six weeks ago um I have not 
seen anything from that nor have I followed   up with Mr parar but the building official has 
maintain that it was a verbal approval that is correct okay so we we have the building official 
stating that it was provided verbally has the   city engineer are we aware of any other instances 
where the city engineer provided verbal approval   for things Mr German building officials 
indicated that that was a um as as did Mr   parar he stated this to me that that 
was a um that was a practice that he   and the building official um exercised on a 
semi-regular basis for single family residences yeah okay there was photograph s that were I 
believe sent throughout the process from the he   family you know showing the realities similar to 
we've seen on on on Jackson Avenue and the from my   understanding is they came in they did underground 
from that second poll and then they came in   and dug the sale and that's when a lot of the 
questions came about how deep are those lines and   so the timing of that we can pause I think that's 
one we might want to capture as clarifying and it   would be good to know um if we can obtain anything 
from Mr parar uh to confirm because I don't want   to apply uh if Mr parar says no I I don't that 
isn't practice we don't do that or or he we had a   misunderstanding um that to me that we're going to 
work on we don't need to fix the problem because   if he if he says that he always provides it in 
writing think we is it Council consensus then that   we get a statement from Mr Brar about whether or 
not he can confirm that it was a verbal approval   in this case I think that would help us or help me 
certainly you got that also I think to the mayor's   question is in addition to have Mr parar either 
confirm or deny that this was a practice that he   and the building official relied on was verbal 
approvals am I correct mayor yeah I think that that's that would be good yes and so 
the two points whether this one was   verbal and second point is whether they 
was typically verbal and ultimately while   those are practices I really want to 
understand you know what does our code   tell us and I think under this site plan 
the city Engineers role is provided in our code I would imagine in this section under city 
engineer supposed to be reviewing the site plan   for the code yep and any submitt revisions yeah 
all that the city for site plans the city engineer   is in a review and approve mode but for single 
family he's in an inspect and approv mode and   does our code talk about the format in which the 
city engineer provides approvals no does it say   in writing because in their defense if it doesn't 
I I think would be okay it it doesn't talk about   it from the inspection standpoint from but from 
the plan review Point believe there's there's   words in there about shall be submitted to the 
director comment shall be submitted to and I   I have always taken that as written and I think 
you've always gotten them as written yes correct   I would I would agree with that so I think an 
opportunity mayor is and as Anthony said he's   been working on this section already tighten 
up that inspection part of it in the code as well yes and just knowing what 
applicable code governed this   process here that's I think a big part of of the tasks yeah when when I came on board as building 
official in 20022 2003 that existing seal   application is the same as it was then and in in 
part of my coming in and learning the ropes of   the job you know the staff was there to tell me 
this is what this means this is how this form is   to be used you make sure you get this engineer 
certification that before you issue a CO so to   me that was like week one kind of stuff that 
I got from the staff but that was a it was a   longstanding staff at that time who had been 
there who had been doing this for years prior   to me being there um by the time Mike German 
became building official there was nobody left   in that department that had those years of 
experience um so he he inherited this form   without any training about how it's used without 
any understanding about 110 221 requiring a site   plan and how this form ties into that so 
that that lack of knowledge I understand   how that happened there's there's institutional 
knowledge that wasn't passed down and the code   doesn't specifically tie the site plan to the 
co application so there's The Perfect Storm   setting conditions right there now we're aware 
of it now we can make recommendations and fix it thank you so 110221 that's the start 
of it did the the city form the long that   we had used I would assume came from 110 to 21 
doesn't specifically say that but yeah it ties   into 221 yeah so those requirements to have 
things signed is that a for is that stated in   the form or is that in our code it's in the 
form do we know if it's in the code as well   I've never seen it in the code I've looked for 
it and I haven't found it there's very little   in the code about the processes of Co application 
there's the requirement for a CEO there definitely   you have to have a COO but it doesn't talk 
about this and I've looked specifically for it thank you um okay so here we go just 
review procedures 110 223 section B the   site plan shall be submitted by the Planning 
and Development Department to the following   Department directors for their review and comment 
just like we said city engineer or registered   Engineers so that was that site plan did go 
to the engineer however it did not go to the   next one which is building and code enforcement 
department correct the Fire Marshall received   it yes it says that the Planning and Development 
Department submits it but isn't building and well   no isn't that the same Department they're 
under the same um Fund in the budget doesn't   the org chart though all under It's all 
under Community Economic Development and so how can a department who sends something is 
this saying that the department I don't understand   how the department can't receive their own so this site plan was never sent to 
building and code enforcement corre in the   beginning correct so they were pursuing this 
project with four single families how is it   usually sent emailed yes what happens is when we 
get an application and this was if to recall this   was pre bsna mhm um so what generally happens is 
we'll get a um an electronic copy of a site plan   approval and our um EA will farm that out to the 
various review departments um and she monitors   that um to make sure that we get comments back 
from those various review entities um She'll   follow up with them and then we'll take the 
comments the plan who's ever working on the   case will take those comments and and prepare 
a staff report that goes to the Planning and   Zoning Board that is the board that's responsible 
for approving site plans in this case I went back   and looked at the email that was sent out um 
and it did it was sent to everybody except the   building official and code enforcement yeah and 
code enforcement did not go to code enforcement   thank you and who ultimately approves the site 
plan um it goes to the planning and zoning board   for a recommendation and then I am responsible as 
the community development director for I'll call   an administrative approval of site plans which 
as a as an can I make an editorial comment real   quick I do not like doing um I think that's one 
of the things that I'm working with Anthony on   right now um is an ordinance change is to get me 
out of that approval process that needs to either   go to the city council or somebody else that 
should not be handled administratively and so   we're we're we're we're working on that right 
now but currently I ultimately approve that administratively what so you're talking 
through site plan 110 223 upon the receipt   of the Planning and Zoning board's recommendation   the city manager or design shall make a 
final decision on the application so I don't I don't think it has to be you I 
think it actually says the city manager   first yeah it was written that way so 
that it could be the department director   yeah that's why the code was written that way 
yeah so it could be could be but he doesn't   want that and so what I'm saying is is if if 
if I could designate someone else or have it   be me I think Anthony and I have talked 
about that and I think the concerns are   any any level of administrative approval for 
site plan is is concerning but I agree the the   code before that mayor said the Planning and 
Zoning Board had final approval on site plans what is the code before that was the code 
before it said Planning and Zoning was the   final stop the board was the final stop 
they they had the approval Authority and   then they changed that it was yep it was 
recommended and the council changed it   that changes to what it is today that I don't 
think that's been in the last five years has it my recollection is that occurred 
um when Mr Green was the city manager   and was his uh I think his suggestion at the time 
I think that that was be I think that was before I   was here part part of that reason was he that's 
what I recall I just remember the Planning and   Zoning Board having final Authority and then 
it it switched Planning and Zoning Board and   um I mean I I think it I think it should be 
a board and a public hearing process I agree   staff is fully aware of my opinion on that 
so we are work reworking that section of the   code and my recommendation is going to be that 
it go to a board at a public hearing not not   be done administratively now in the small small 
matters that's a different different story bigger   site plan should be should added in public yes 
okay thank you yes I think trying to follow our   policy today talking about ways to 
improve is is good my other questions is so the D as a d director the role of the director in the site 
planning we're saying is to take that out now   and we're going to rely heavily on the council 
no or or go back to an older at very at the   very least go back to the way it used to be but 
there may be other options as well that that will   remove administrative final approval that's 
our goal get away from administrative final approval okay so the um something was not forwarded 
I think we talked about that uh the finding to um I'm just going through yes council member Jackson um on 10 110 
222 the requirement and review criteria now I've   dealt with larger cities so this may be something 
we just simply don't do but I see nowhere in this   code where we would Define a utility easement 
and most site plans do have an utility easement   defined so that the Builder would know you know 
during the the site plan process where that   utility easan is typically Florida Florida Power 
and Light or Spectrum would be the ones that would   help Define that entrance onto the property um and 
I don't see that am I missing something I think   the plat certainly would what are you're saying 
it where in the code does it yes I mean we've   got landscape that we want to see on that site 
map and this is under 110 221 submitt review and   submitt and review required um it talks about the 
size of dwellings and density it talks about size   height feet all of these things um but you know 
to me that site plan should include the utility   easements so that there's no question whatsoever 
moving forward where the entrance facilities would   be for the utilities it's a it's an engineering 
issue um the site plan code does require engineer   engineering data and part of that data is all of 
the utilities um street lights Etc drainage so in   conjunction with an engineered site plan that's 
required to be submitted to the city for review   by staff and the city engineer it has to lay out 
the utilities so how they the engineers of record   design that I mean it varies as you probably are 
aware like all over the place so they design it it   gets reviewed by staff if it's if it's acceptable 
that's when okay your water and sewer utilities   are being proposed here in this location then 
there needs to be um you know required easements   and they get a match up the engineering on a plat 
right they you guys will match the engineering   with the plat and and and you'll start seeing on 
the plat all the all the easements okay so that   comes in when the engineering dock is completed 
when the engineering data comes in with all the   engineered utilities and drainage you know it it 
it's required that you know that if they're going   to be public or private ements that are required 
that's part of the review process depending on   how the engineers present their proposed plan 
okay and I see now under two um topographic   survey including the following and this might 
uh be where it's included City attorney is   under 2C lot lines and dimensions of all setback 
structures and easements okay thank you I just   in the section below that three engineering data 
including the following okay perfect I wanted to   make sure because we mentioned you know sewage 
and other things Water and Sewer but we didn't   really pull that out but that's fine if that 
easements in there thank you yep thank you so   yes on finding number one I I think that as I'm 
giving some feedback it says that on the bottom   of page one there summary of findings for number 
one on the that the code uh the building and   code enforcement department was not forwarded the 
the site plan they did not receive the site plan um now this is this is then it says building 
a code no longer exists as a single Department   however there's a reason to exclude these 
departments from the site when there   no reason to exclude them right this is an 
example of needed so we're saying that the   reason they were excluded or we're saying it 
just I'm saying even that's not a good excuse   okay and this is an example of a needed city 
code update I I I don't know why the code needs   to be updated because it references building 
and code enforcement as one department and   they're not one department but that's not not 
the reason they didn't send it I just put it   in there because it was it's a note okay I don't 
want to lose track of this I think that the way   it reads today though it's clear that clear 
enough that it should have gone to building   and code enforcement okay so there wasn't there's 
not a a code issue from what I see and understand   that wasn't a a hindrance here it's just a note 
for myself that I don't want to lose track of   and this is a public hearing item right the 
site plan and and we're all um okay the co application was intended to use to reinforce 
city code 110221 that Co application has not   been provided today is that we can what 
I understand that application that would   be one is you you want to see the 
application for these properties   or just a blank one I'd like to see 
the ones for these Council consensus mayor I okay the council any concern with see in 
the site plan checklist it's the the co   co application okay I have no concern over it 
but we the whole report M the city manager is   going to be bringing back recommendations 
on all the different changes all the code   changes all the process changes all the 
document changes that are that are going   to prevent us from having this issue again if 
we're going to discuss them all tonight we'll   we'll probably be here till tomorrow night but 
uh I think we should let him finish the report   and we can delve into at a later date how he is 
resolving all these issues give him that benefit thank you okay and then uh building official 
training did I know I asked about code but it   sounds like when he took over he was not provided 
the training that he needed that's my belief okay but there's also a a job description at play here 
the job description requires the building official to administer the Florida building code all 
applicable technical codes and city code so   it was a matter of the job description yeah 
and I think so he was trained sufficiently   or I'm I'm saying I I don't think he was but 
he was still responsible for it absolutely I think understanding who is responsible within our   city or chart for ensuring the building 
official is trained is really important and the third um finding three on the email 
uh did not receive the email regarding the   incomplete retention did not timely receive 
the email do we uh we know it was the October   5th and then the next day Sixth and I think the 
report said they received it on the seventh okay um and then the last finding 
four is the verbal approve um yeah I think things it really doesn't exist 
if it's not in writing I mean I think we have   to take that position right and I wanted 
to see in our code it sounds like it it   doesn't specify um and so that's that's 
what I have for those and I'm sure we'll   have more but yes thank you on Filmore 
Avenue I got some public comment cards   here I want to just pause for Jackson to make 
sure they have a chance uh Miss vadin are you   still here I am still I wanted to see if you 
wanted to speak you submitted another card I believe do you need a full three minutes or 
okay thank you my concern was my concern on   was as a res my concern was who was going 
to all right now there's a problem city's   been made aware of the problem for whatever 
reason the city official approved it um has   nothing to do with anybody sitting here 
somebody didn't do his job thankfully   he's left and hopefully we have a better 
person in that position um my concern is   who's going to pay for this are we paying for 
this this wires and the FL of power coming in   or is the I don't think the homeowner should 
pay for it because he they have a CEO saying   everything's okay and my concern is who is paying 
for this next lap to be fixed mhm it sounds like   it was a city problem it was gener ated by a 
city official not doing their job properly okay   and I just want everybody to be aware of that if 
somebody in the city approves something you're a   government agency you're saying this is done this 
is okay and when it comes across all of your desks   from planning and zoning and they say blah blah 
blah blah blah blah and you all sit up there and   say I approve I approve I approve you are relying 
on those City officials to be doing their job and   you're approving what you presume them to be doing 
correctly okay me a resident who's lived here 30   plus years and our 1.9 square miles have seen 
many many things that if you have an engineer   no one the city engineer probably never even 
came to the site because the engineer is doing   everything and it sounds like that's what happened 
here if you have an engineer the engineer is going   to sign off saying everything is good somebody 
from the city calls the engineer they meet at   the site is everything that we have in here that 
you that the engineer wrote is it completed the   engineer tells our engineer yes it's completed 
they shake hands they sign off it goes over   used to go over the planning and zoning and moves 
forward I don't know how you can fix that and   people are people they're going to take the path 
of lease resistance if an engineer is doing it I   don't have to do it and so I just think this is 
something that probably shouldn't have happened   and the engineer when he went there said it was 
okay but obviously it wasn't okay thank you but   you have to be careful because who's really 
liable for this now thank you Miss Shannon Roberts um first of all I'd like to commend 
you all for looking at an internal process   Improvement opportunity I guess is the way 
I look at it and um just in observing as a   member of the public I just wanted to suggest uh 
that the city consider a process that we use at   the federal level call Process ma mapping and it 
keeps it from becoming you know a situation like   the city has at least helps anyway to avoid what's 
happened with this particular situation and what   it involves you all talked about the process you 
know what's involved what steps are involved who   the players that are involved the time elements 
of the process involved and it also talks about   the approval level which to me is very good that 
you all talk about that because as a member of   the city I resident I just think that some of the 
approval levels too low um particularly when it   impacts the whole of the city that it should be 
elevated and in my opinion should go back to what   we used to do at Council which was to improve pnz 
would approve recommend and then the council would   approve of some of these site plans and some of 
the major developments in the city you know which   we've talked about before we also have at Federal 
level we call it an Avo avoid verbal which to me   I'm just hearing what may have happened with good 
intentions because the people here are all great   have got good hearts and are very capable but 
sometimes when we rely on verbal it it sometimes   can cause confusion or the step being missed and 
my observation listening to what's happened here   is that that may have happened in this case 
because the people are not bad and you we do   great hiring here and this would have potentially 
avoided some confusion and it would have also been   clear having the process map which is just a 
one page it just has you know just a process   of triangles that makes it real clear visually 
what you're doing with any particular process   the city has and in this case it could have 
possibly in mapping that you know prove yet   and then you have the people and the steps and 
the timing and the elements like fbl you know   which was mentioned you know those are things 
that when you have this one picture visual   learning is so helpful it avoids a million 
words you know and that's just a suggested   process the city might consider but so I would 
recommend avoid verbal I would recommend the   approval levels for decision making be Revisited 
particularly for site plans because the city gets   in my opinion the res get surprised by some 
of these developments and if this council is   looking at it then we will be assured that 
we know about it um and then and then the   process mapping is a suggested best practice 
and youa it it's always kept current it's a   living document so as as the process changes you 
know those changes can be made so thank you thank you okay um that was all I had for 
public comment cards and if anyone   from the audience since we open it up we 
want to extend that I do see one um hand   raised uh if we're capable to unmute I think 
I can handle that here if your hand is raised   and you intend to raise it please keep it 
up uh otherwise take it down Mr Campbell   if you can hear us I'm going to go ahead 
and unmute you and give me just a moment can you hear me okay yes sir loud and clear 
okay I'm get a little bit of feedback uh first   I just want to say I wholeheartedly agree 
with Miss Roberts um recommendation on on   process mapping uh I would spread it out even 
process blow charts swim and metrics all to   be be put in place uh and then the other two 
things I want to ask about just so I can get   my head wrapped around what I'm reading here um 
from what I understand the the units were built   uh not according to the approved plan and one 
of the methods were one of the activities that   could have occurred uh when it was uncovered 
that they were not build in accordance with   plan is the co and building permits could be 
revoked did that did that ever happen did any   did was anything pulled back revoked or turned 
off and my second question I heard that um I   Heard the words that Florida building code and 
they were built to some and maybe I'm wrong on   this built as a single family residence 
that's how they're treated and from what   I understand on the definition s these are 
really duplexes because they share common   wall uh so can somebody clarify single family 
residents versus duplexes for me that's what I had thank you Mr Campbell that conclude 
your comments yes it does thank you thank you okay and I don't see I do not see any other 
uh hands raised and so with that we'll go ahead   and close public comment back it's Mr Pat Campbell 
I assume that for the record that's captured um   the first question on a co could be revoked uh 
was that done my understanding is no the uh the   report did talk about that um on page um five M it 
says note city code section 110- 91 kind of in the   middle of the page there says that um that's to 
okay shall be deemed a violation shall authorize   building official to revoke or suspend any 
previously issued building permits or Co or pursue   any other local remedy necessary and italics 
underneath that that's addressed and I I wrote   the building official stated that he understood he 
had the authority to suspend or revoke the cosos   but because the units were now occupied and the 
developer and contractor indicated their desire   to cause the needed work to be completed the 
building official did not exercise this option   and the report also states that the building 
official did choose to exercise an after theact compliance because of the willingness of the parties the developer and the contractor are the 
parties not the homeowners though developer and   the contractor and to this day um the developer 
and the contractor have remained with willing   to cause the needed corrections as an after the 
fact compliance issue and I think is the second   question was uh the treated on the single 
the difference between single family home   and a duplex it all has to do with the property 
lines um a duplex is two units within one piece   of property so a imagine a rectangle that's 
one piece of property and it's got two units   on there there's there's a firewall between 
them for sure and and the code only requires   1our firewall separation in that case 
in the case of town homes it requires   a 2hour separation and there's a property line 
underneath that firewall so two town home units   that are attached will have a property line going 
right down the middle of them and there's a 2hour   firewall right there on that line that's the 
difference um so I understand Mr Campbell is   asking for the difference between single family 
and duplex single family obviously is just just   one single family unit on a piece of property 
that's not the case here um in terms well that   was the building officials interpretation 
that was that these are single families   because the town homes under the Florida 
building code are defined as single family residences but with the city code there's a 
property line a 2hour firewall Town Homes the   floor a building code addresses the construction 
of them as single family residences and I think   that's led to the building officials 
interpretation that these were single   families and therefore only needing the city 
Engineers approval at the end but when you when   you layer in the city code side of it these 
are four units this is a site plan you can   call them single family you can call them Town 
Homes regardless there's a site plan there's an   engineer of record there's a common drainage 
facility you need that engineer of Records   final certificate so there's four units on 
Filmore yes how many units are on Jefferson   the example of a duplex currently there are 
three pieces of property one has nothing   going on the other two have a duplex on each 
but how many units though four four units two duplexes two buildings two no um it's one 
attached duplex Under One Roof on this   property one attached duplex Under One Roof on 
this prop is there a difference in the quantity   of units between Philmore and Harrison Philmore 
and Jefferson thank you Philmore and Jefferson it   sounds like they're both four units yeah but 
they're not town homes on Jefferson um yes I   understand that I'm saying but there there's four 
units on each so far there there may be more on   Jefferson only two two oh two units on each 
piece of property there's how many units are   on Filmore one unit per piece of property total 
of four units okay we're using units buildings   structures uh some of those I think are synonymous 
but you had said that there are four units on billmore and when I see there are four and we're 
calling these dwelling units right there were four   dwelling units on Jefferson so just that alone 
though there's no difference in the duplex in   the town home from a quantity of units there's 
four front doors it'll be one10 a and b yeah and   whatever the actual address is and then the other 
ones have unique parcel addresses but they're   still both for units there's two buildings I 
assume building and structure is synonymous   there are two buildings on Filmore and each 
building has two units there are two buildings on Jefferson but those are duplexes because 
there is no property line that separate with   the wall but as far as the number of units 
the number of buildings they're the same so is that right yeah I'm tracking with all   of that there's the difference also is 
there's no common drainage facility on Jefferson well I think that but 
you don't need a common drainage   we're not looking at all differences 
there's a lot of differences I think the the site plan I'm not challenging the site 
plan needed on Filmore whether it was or not   sounds like there was you know two positions I 
think the site plan was good and I think that   the procedures that that site plan follows is 
really good especially on Filmore Avenue with   the the the water I do not fully understand what 
why they're different but other than the parcel   line um different owners as well so literally it's 
a lot defined at the county with the tax parcel   assigned to it for each unit on Filmore right but 
on Jefferson it's one tax parcel with two units   on it and one lot defined through the count 
count property appraiser with two units on it okay okay well let's go ahead thank you um and 
and move on mayor if I could just restate my   understanding of council consensus items from 
this before we move on yes um we're to get John   P's comment on whether this was verbal get John 
Pear's comment on whether verbal approvals were   typical for single family and request copies 
of all the four Co applications for these four   properties and I think you and I uh went through 
this um and found some maybe some areas I would   welcome uh uh any revisions to this that you see 
that can help clarify I understand it was done   on short notice sure I I can go through it again 
and just call it just revised for clarification   if there if there is between now uh that way we 
can I think help move these along to I will say   may I did put a tremendous amount of time 
pressure on myself to get this out in two   weeks and that's why you didn't receive it until 
last night I'm going to need more than two weeks   to get this anything else done here because we 
got another council meeting coming up here too   and I think we've come a long way on this item um 
and things are kind of rolling forward so I just   need to I need a chance to breathe a little 
bit and and we have a CIP Workshop coming up   again too yeah so I'm not I'm not tapping the 
brakes I'm just saying I'm letting off the gas   a little bit just to breathe that's okay I think 
you've stated you've got the findings from your   side as far as you can you're not saying that 
there could be more our city manager has not   our City attorney has not had a chance to get 
in getting back to items five for each one of   them I think we'll move towards that and um 
thank you any other questions nothing in this   investigation is going to hinder resolution on 
the property nothing at all okay two separate tracks there if you're ready I can go on to 
investigation number two one last question   this is a condensed version is there a lot 
is there are more no as the information was   Anthony's laughing is because it it doesn't seem 
seemed very condensed um as the information was   coming my way I put in things like from the months 
of September through December this kind of stuff   happened that's what I mean I'm condensing that 
rather than put specific information that's not   helpful that just would have filled up a lot more 
pages that's what I mean when I see things are   condensed thank you yep uh let's yeah let's shift 
to Jackson and again all under the same Hub if we   need to come back we can Council good with that 
okay so mayor if I can start yes please um like   the last one um there are certain things that I 
looked into and there we may come across things   that still need to be looked into I'm not saying 
everything in the whole world was looked into we   might find the council might find you want some 
more things here too and that's okay just um I   looked into the issues that were presented to me 
to the best of my ability and I I like to say I   got to the bottommost most bottom that I could get 
to those issues so my methodology here is little   bit different than the first one so I'm going 
to read through it first one my investigation   began with a verbal interview with Mrs Peg schaer 
and I just want to thank Mrs schaer because she's   taken a lot of her personal time away from her 
business and her personal life to to meet with   me on on a number of occasions to make sure 
we get this as right as we can get it so I   want to thank her publicly for that so it started 
with uh my interview with her um she referenced   several documents which were submitted to Aid in 
my investigation her statements were later written   as six condensed assertions at a subsequent me 
meeting with Miss schaer the assertions were   submitted for her review and comment after minor 
minor modifications she her comments were complete   then I began interviewing appropriate staff 
consisting of the community economic development   director Dave dicki code enforcement manager 
Brian Palmer code enforcement officer robt Chris   Robinson and Mrs schaer's comments were reviewed 
in detail Ste five although not initial assertion   by Mrs charler I added a seventh inquiry into 
the investigation this was related to the fire   which had taken place one of the two fires the 
latest fire let me get it that way which had   taken place on the property number six I then held 
an interim meeting with Mrs schaer you might re he   to it you might hear about it being referred to 
as the Starbucks meeting because we closed down a   Starbucks um with Mrs schaer to review the status 
of the investigation of the six initial items and   to gather her perspective on the Fire item which 
is item seven then uh held additional meetings   with appropriate staff to review all seven items 
both Mrs Scher comments and staff comments have   informed the findings reported herein and these 
findings were reviewed with Mrs Scher yesterday   for final comments um and I shared with her that 
a few other items that she asked for were put in   here so she's up to speed on this mayor um and I 
don't know if she has any comments before I get   started mayor if you want to hear from her well 
I think she wanted the opportunity to speak at   the end she did speak speak at the beginning and 
as I understood the comments it was uh that your   the opportunity to meet with you is she uh the 
questions uh she appreciates and understands uh   you working through the questions line by line 
however the the findings the responses I think   that you're receiving are are still a concern 
yeah so thank you so the uh items each one each   of the six items have their own findings I unlike 
the previous one where I brought all the findings   up to the front I didn't do that here because 
they're all kind of unique to their own individual   items I issues I should say so we broke them 
down into the seven issues and the issue number   one is her claim that code enforcement department 
conducted selective enforcement um so she um was   referencing that her she made a complaint about 
7802 North Atlantic Avenue that's the moon Hut for   evidence of a codee enforcement violation related 
to the paving of a parking lot specifically that   the paving work had been done without a permit 
they placed new impervious pavement over an area   that was previously perious in other words it was 
you know water could go through it and third they   didn't have a requirement for an engineered 
storm water retention facility and why that   was important to her is because um she had 
to put in an engineered storm water retention   facility on her property at the request of the 
city engineer so um she provided evidence code   enforcement acknowledgement of her request on 
December 5th of 22 and again on December 14th   of 2023 so that's a year apart she she indicated 
she did not receive follow-up communication during   the 12- month period and no corrective work 
was undertaken at the Moon Hut property however   during the time period a notice of violation was 
issued for placing rocks in the drainage sale   at 116 within 4 days so those um while that 
year was going on and nothing was happening   she got a notice of violation within four days 
of placing rocks in her drainage soil that that's   that what she initially presented me with she 
indicated that the apparent lack of communication   in progress on her complaint regarding Moon Hut 
for an entire year combined with the quick action   made her uh feel a selective enforcement 
that she felt targeted so that was her um   initial assertion and then we began the response 
first thing is the clarification notice that her   original complaint was on 82222 no disagreement 
on that moving forward um code enforcement staff   produced The Following documentation of email 
um and I have them here marked as exhibit A and   B but I didn't include them because she agrees 
yeah that she did get that correspondence that's   that's not an issue it's really um that nothing 
had happened for a year out there at the Moon   Hut um regarding the 4-day turnaround I provided 
a timeline about the first complaint by Cowboy   he was a the I don't think that's his real name 
name I think that's a nickname of it that's what   he calls himself the he's a neighboring tenant 
or he was at the time um he filed a complaint   um regarding the parking um that there was 
just there were parking problems and that's   related to the the restaurant and became very 
successful a lot of more chairs were put in   there and um I guess his customers couldn't Park 
so he filed a complaint so on 32822 we sent an   original notice of violation to Mr Reynolds 
he's the owner of the property so cowboy and   are tenants but Shane Reynolds is the 
owner 32822 on 8322 we sent the first   revised notice of violation on 822 um Peg filed 
a complaint about the 7802 parking on 524 23 this   is nine months later Cowboy makes a complaint 
regarding the rocks and the sale and 61223 Mrs   charler requests the status update regarding the 
7802 North Atlantic parking complaint on 61623   staff created a second revised notice of violation 
which included the rocks and the sale on 71923 we   sent that revised notice violation in 112 of 23 
the case was closed so in a follow-up meeting Mrs   Scher confirmed that the 4-day period she's 
referencing is regarding the date that she   requested an update which was 612 to the date that 
the noov was dated 616 can you scroll a little bit   Mia um so that was was indeed the 4-day period 
that she was referencing uh and I do have a note   that the second revised notice violation was not 
actually sent until 71 1923 so Cowboy made the   complaint on 524 don't don't go back a little bit 
right there Cowboy made the complaint on 524 23   she request a status update on 612 we create the 
notice violation on the 16th and we sent it on the   19th so there's really from the start to end of 
that whole thing is 524 to 719 but I understand   in her perspective 612 to 6 616 looks to her like 
hey I'm just making a request for an update and 4   days later I have a document for dated four days 
later that you know you're you're slamming me   for this so in a follow-up meeting uh she she 
verified that was the 4-day period that she's   talking about um she agreed that we had provided 
the correspondence however she's reemphasizing out   her original comment that no corrective work had 
been undertaken at the Moon Hut parking lot still   to this day has it additionally Mrs Scher stated 
that she would like to see a timeline of all code   enforcement actions interactions regarding the 
moon Hut to verify that similar time frames were   employed to her enforcement experience so here's 
the timeline 21522 we observed code enforcement   observed the parking lot being repaved spoke to 
the owner informed him a permit was required owner   indicated he would get a permit no notation was 
made regarding the previously pervious area 42322   owner of 7 802 Moon Hut applied for a permit 
the application did not include information   regarding the previously perious area 4:24 the 
next day permit application was denied due to   it being an owner Builder permit when you have 
to have a contractor uh owner Builders can only   do a residential you can't do owner builder for 
commercial 425 uh we did that 822 Mrs Scher met   with Mr Dicky regarding the unpermitted paving 
work as well as other requests for investigation   at this time she communicated to Mr Dicky about 
the previous prvious Issue 12522 4 months later   Mrs Scher requested an email update regarding 
the parking lot at the Moon Hut she restated   in the email about the previously perious area 
code enforcement staff responded to Mrs schaer   via email that the owner was already made 
aware of the requirement for a permit code   enforcement staff also informed Mrs sh Sher 
that the owner's first permit application um   had been denied and the reason for its denial code 
enforcement was made a way of the previously Pro   issue on 12522 as a result of Mrs scher's 
email so at this point everybody knew about the   previously pervious and we didn't have a permit 
to address the moon Hut yet 32623 as a matter of   Code Enforcement followup they searched the permit 
database showed no Paving permit had been approved   or reapplied for since the application was denied 
the first time on the same date code enforcement   staff left a voicemail message for the owner of 
moon Hut in reinform of the requirement for a   permit and that the scope of the permit would 
be required to address all work performed and   there's a reason I italicized that because we're 
going to go off into a little discussion about   why why code enforcement says all work performed 
the previous previous issue was not specifically   called out to the owner instead what was called 
out was that the scope of the permit would be   required to address all work performed so there's 
a bolded note here this has to do with code Code   Enforcement practice the reason the issue of the 
previously Pur are was not specifically called   out with the owner is because the permits scope is 
always required to cover all work performed they   have to cover all work performed we don't want to 
say there's this one thing we know about and then   you don't do the other things that we don't know 
about you got to cover all work you performed the   contractor is the authorized representative 
of the owner and is required to follow excuse   me all applicable codes including as in this 
case codes related to previously perious areas   the issuance of a permit does not authorize any 
violations of code intentionally omitted or not   if a permit omits an item from its scope that does 
not relieve the burden to comply with applicable   codes regarding that omitted portion of scope so 
that's a standard way of approaching this work it   seems their experience is the more you specify the 
more they don't address what you don't specify and   you don't want to you don't want to cause them to 
now not address something in a permit because you   didn't specifically say you just say all work 
performed moving on 61223 Mrs Scher contacted   code enforcement staff requesting an update on 
the paveed parking lot and her other requests   Mr Palmer responded by email that the request was 
being forwarded to the code enforcement officer   that same day a second code enforcement search of 
the permit database no new permit application had   been submitted same day code enforcement staff 
again contacted the owner about the required   permit and the owner stated his opinion was the 
work was a patch job that should not require a   permit code enforcement staff reaffirmed that 
it is more than that and that it required a   permit application submitted by an appropriately 
licensed Paving contractor owner indicated he   would comply later that day code enforcement staff 
received a call from a roofing company asking if   they would be able to obtain the paving permit 
code enforcement said no the scope of a roofing   contractor license does not constitute appropriate 
lure for Paving roofing contractor said okay I'll   relay this information to the owner and then 
moving on to 87 23 if you want to scroll Mia 827 uh we finally receive a a permit application 
uh this is this is now the second permal   application submitted to building department 
staff this one's by satino construction they   are an appropriate license Paving contractor 
scope of the work that they indicated wrote   they wrote work already completed asphalt 
patches seal coat and striping they did not   specifically include that a previously 
perious area had been paid paved over   but they were going to address all work completed 
8923 and after the fact permit was issued because   the work was already done uh and when we issue 
it after the fact permit there's a double penalty   fee you pay double permit fee but there was 
no mention of the previously pervious area   issue building department staff notified code 
enforcement staff the permit had been issued   code enforcement staff did not investigate 
whether the permit addressed the previously   perious condition and we talked about that in the 
note above 8923 the after that's the same day was   issued it received an approved final inspection 
building department staff did not immediately   notify code enforcement staff the permit had 
received an approved final inspection so here's   my finding number one had code enforcement 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 caused to reject the permit application 
for its failure to address the previously perious   issue um current building department practice does 
not include forwarding code enforcement related   building permit applications to code enforcement 
staff so it's evident in there where I'm going   to be going with with my recommendations that if 
somebody's applying for a permit to cor to correct   a code enforcement violation code enforcement 
needs to be reviewing that permit application   to make sure it's going to address everything 
that has not been a procedure so that's why   that is a finding on December 11th 23 code 
enforcement was aired that the permit had   received an approved final inspection so that's 
some four months later pause if you don't mind   please so is that does that complete I think 
that's finding number one yes sir are you now   moving on to the next finding uh yes well we're 
we're actually continuing in the timeline it on uh but we're not going to finding number two 
it's not ISS issue number two yet we're not   there yet yeah we're getting finding number 
two for issue number one is what we're going   to now we're heading we're heading towards um 
finding number two okay can I uh and there's   finding number one can we can we pause and 
do a little and just comment on this one   please okay so on page seven up towards the 
Middle where it says regarding the the the   top regarding the 4-day turnaround 
the following timeline has been created um Miss schaer on 612 requested an update and 
then four days later the the revised noov went   out we're saying no that's not actually first 
it was sent on 79 19 yeah but it was dated   61623 okay and so our finding is that but it 
was yeah so so it has the effect certainly   from her correspondence and she now has the city 
saying you know as of this date I assume right is   that how she would interpret it I would think 
that she did in it's 30 days past and so the we're saying no it actually wasn't from 612 to 
616 it was from 524 that's when the cowboy made   the complaint okay her cowboy made a complaint 
yes sir that's the first I think I'm heard how   did we verify that cowboy made a complaint 
um Brian or Dave you want to speak to that   and what was his complaint regarding rocks 
in the SES so we know what his complaint was um on 524 well I guess you're you're stating that 
on 524 your findings Mr SD managers that the   cowboy makes a complaint and this came from 
officer Palmer is that I spoke with both Mr   Palmer and code enforcement officer Robinson well 
I guess how do we how did you write down what was   it based on Cowboy makes a complaint what what 
information were you provided is what I'm to to   show that that's true my brandan do you want 
to talk I don't remember the details of that   specific one that complaint was filed with officer 
Robinson while he was out on site and he annotated   that in his uh field notes it was fil verbally 
yes okay so um so when was officer Robinson on   that site Vis it I I don't have his field notes in 
front of me so I don't know when he was out there   well it says that maybe it was on if that's 524 
okay silly question I would assume as much that   so and the complaint was about the rocks and 
the sale do we have was that provided in our   in our actions in the field notes back 
in January or March was that providing   the field notes I believe all the field notes 
from this one here were were provided yes so   the com so if I was to verify we were able to 
verify that cowy made a complaint by going to   the field notes on 524 yes I believe they are in 
the field notes of 524 okay I'm gonna I have them um the the issue and it was on the gravel 5204 
conducted a site visit but able to confirm living   in the garages unable to reach property owner 
that's all the field note says that's new to me   I haven't seen this 524 so where did that 
that was not in the field notes are these   now new information that's going to be added 
to the field notes if so where did that new   information I don't know these are the I saw 
this and as he was I was explaining that to   the city manager he asked a question we pulled 
up the field notes and that's where I saw it   you saw that on here's the field notes that you 
provided or I think code enforcement at large provided it said says conducted a 
site visit but unable to confirm   living in garage is unable to 
reach property let me just and so okay so we don't have any I don't see any 
verification of anything happening on 524 from   the field notes is that from 116 is that the 
116 is that the same case there are numer ous   cases on this so I don't know what portion of the 
field notes that that was in so I'm I'm sorry I   don't know exactly what you're looking at well it 
wasn't related to cases the the field notes were   related to properties and so 116 118 120 were the 
properties and so all cases and I think that the   statement here was that Peg schaer on 612 request 
a status update about a parking complaint we have   verification of that and then 4 days later is 
a uh the the noov is dated and then sent and   that's her complaint is I wanted a request 4 
days later I'm sent this and we're saying no   it wasn't four days later Cowboy had made a 
complaint based on field notes that were not   from what I can see provided in January 24th 
524 and so if this is what happened on 524 in   the field notes I would assume it would be here 
because does that make sense I guess you drafted   this report there's multiple cases and in the 
findings what did we find to make this statement true what did we find to make the statement 
that cowboy makes a complaint regarding rocks   in the whale the true statement as Mr Palmer 
is indicating that would have been in the field   notes do we have those field notes do you 
they're not part of this they're not part   of this report as you know mayor if you if you 
Council would like to see those we can produce   those I have them these are the ones I mean we 
don't need multiple copies I haven't alter I'm   literally this my handwriting from the meeting 
this is the actual ones mayor can I see those   real quick just to see what they are thank you 
I mean if if if we need to we can we can provide   documentation for all comments that are made that 
staff is making in here I I didn't realize it was   going to require that so we can we can certainly 
take a take a pause we'd be happy to backfill all   of the comments no well then okay okay no I the 
original ask was for item number one on January   24th I'm not saying no to I think you've already 
we've been provided that I wouldn't ask to redo   it uh again and the goal was to get all actions 
all field notes everything from that's not the   complete record BNA and and so it's really hard 
for us as a council to make good decisions until   we know we have all the information and so 
at that point that's the information we had   the city manager then goes on an investigation 
and now new information comes out that says the 524 a complaint was verbally I guess filed 
with Chris Chris comes back and I don't see   that in the field notes yeah I think mayor the 
attachment that you're referring to attachment   four you just showed us this this is the this 
is the attachment that the comment is records   prior to February 11th 2022 are not available 
and I think we have have have publicly stated   that this list that you is an attachment 4 that 
you're referring to is not a complete list but   this event wasn't prior to 2024 this was 52 423 
so I certainly understand why the field notes   wouldn't have the those you know the February 
20 St this was put in yeah yeah we'd be happy   to provide you with that if if if we we we would 
be happy to provide you with that those those   anotations be in bsna right now yes so if I was 
to log in you don't need to send me anything we   can do a timeout and we can go check together 
if you'd like it's new and it and it certainly   softened I think the the reality of the issue 
that was brought because from my understanding on six 12 or that gravel that doesn't make sense to 
me because that gravel was not even laid at that point and so uh June 5th from my understanding is   when the gravel was installed so I'm 
having a hard time understanding how how the complaint could have came in when it 
wasn't when the gravel didn't even exist um so   yes any Clarity on that uh would be helpful and 
it's not I'm not saying every just anything that   jumps out our city manager I think had to come 
up with a timeline and Report city manager if   I understand you this line item was provided 
from being verbally told from our senior code   enforcement officer I also had have access to 
bsna I can see the records that are there so I   also if it's there I'm assuming it's there as 
Brian Palmer said we can go look right now on   my computer and it should still be there did 
you who wrote this report was I did when you   wrote 5 2423 was that a copy and a paste from 
something sent to you or did you take notes   I'm actually tying in your verbal but well some 
some of it also comes from email correspondents   too okay it at a minimum it's an err that I 
think really says Hey wasn't 4 days it was   much longer and that one jumped out as a concern 
um that the gravel it doesn't make sense to me   why on 524 that complaint would come in and so 
this is why I questioned where did that come from and when I went to the field notes that was 
provided in March they're not there and we were   told that's what that's all the field notes Mr 
Mayor at this time it it sounds kind of like an   attack on on the staff they've offered to to show 
go to and take a break Go and show the proof that   this is in there on the BSA so I suggest we let 
them have that instead of going after the staff   I suggest give them the chance to produce the 
document I'm just asking questions and I think   that's fair I agree I think they should have time 
and yeah instead of attacking them but give them   the chance to prove I'm not attacking anyone I 
am trying to understand why 5 2423 was written   when I know that you know the first thing 
I was told was that field notes I have the   field notes I've I've looked at this property 
on bsna and I'm saying this is new information   city manager can you help me understand and we 
just worked through that I'm not going to sit   over here concerned about asking questions 
that are awkward we all make mistakes we   all have these issues but we're not going to 
get anywhere if we do not accurately confirm   the findings and this is one example here and so 
uh we can take time that's fine um I don't need   that right now I'm just raising the concern 
but I suggest we move on I agree so let's go um May would you like me to pick up from uh 61223 
where we I do I just want what page that's on uh   is it eight no sorry yes page nine is where we 
left off um yeah actually yeah we had talked   about the finding number one uh which ends at 
the top of page nine yep I think that's exactly   right yep okay and then next thing was 121123 code 
enforcement was informed the permit had received   an approved file inspection and this was some four 
months after it had been approved code enforcement   staff informed the building department staff that 
a portion of the parking area was never previously   paved when the building permit was obtained and 
received approved and Final inspection this newly   paved area would have required St John's riverwi 
Management District review after receiving another   complaint regarding the subject storm water 
staff contacted kimley horn City's engineer and   requested a review of the property for storm water 
code requirements 1214 kimle horn and staff met   the owner at the site kimly horn recommended the 
owner contact St John's for review of the issue of   the previously perious um over the holiday 12324 
a courtesy letter was sent to the property owner   indicating kimley Horn's recommendation on 22624 
the courtesy letter was returned as unclaimed 227   the letter was hand delivered to the owner at his 
office on 3:14 having received no information from   the owner regarding recommended St John's review 
a notice violation was sent to the owner three   weeks later the notice of violation had not been 
delivered the US Postal Service website indicated   the letter is being returned to Sender and on 44 
a notice of violation was hand delivered to the   property owner so this next section what I've 
done is more closely looked at M Mrs scher's   request to see a timeline so we can compare side 
by side of all code enforcement interactions at   7802 to verify similar time frames of actions 
were employed this is getting to the heart of   her question about being treated differently 
so this table shows all of the um the various   action items for the two uh code enforcement 
and we can scroll to the next page they're just   summarized from everything that we saw that we 
gone through they're just summarized here just   for brevity so it can be seen in one table we can 
scroll to near the bottom of that table Mia so   good to have you back on on the left hand side 
we see that U Moon hunt had a total of 21 code   enforcement actions and um 116 Jackson had a total 
of nine looking at the span of time for those 21   actions there were 799 days that passed for the 
moon Hut and 629 days over here uh at 116 so we   start looking at the average length of time and 
I don't think this is really bearing useful fruit   so then I'm I'm looking at just the the length of 
time from initial observation to the not notice   of violation scent that that to me becomes a very 
meaningful metric uh and for the moon Hut it was   750 8 days and for um the 116 length of time from 
initial observation to original lus violation sent   was only 45 days so there's a big discrepancy 
there 758 versus 45 days we can scroll a little   more note code enforcement strives to process 
revised notice of violation very quickly now this   is the other three things on the rightand side 
those are the revised ones and that ex you know   there's 128 days 350 days 174 days but normally 
we try to bring those in very quickly in order to   bring an existing violation to the soonest special 
magistrate hearing so the time span between the   initial inspection and notice violation should 
usually be greater than the time span between   notice violation and any revised notice violation 
um also I should note that during this time staff   is trying to gain voluntary compliance um before 
the issue a notice violation so that led me to   put in a summary table of departmental time goals 
if we can scroll to that one this is what staff   tries to accomplish and there's eight steps the 
first one is we receive a complaint to the date   we register the complaint our time frame is we try 
to get it the same day or within one day second   step is register the complaint to conduct field 
visit we try to hit one day third step is conduct   field visit to gaining voluntary compliance and 
that depends on the violation how hard it is to   fix how um willing The Violator is several other 
things and that is usually 1 to 30 days could be   more step four is if you fail to gain voluntary 
compliance that's when we send a should be sending   a courtesy letter now notice that they're not 
certified mail the goal for the courtesy letter is   1 to 30 days it's variable depending again on if 
they're working for towards compliance but let's   say they don't the courtesy letter does not make 
any difference that's step five courtesy letter   followed by failure to gain compliance that's when 
we force for to notice violation and the next step   right there says varies so I want to focus on 
that box right there where it says varies this   to me is an important um metric and and we'll talk 
more about this as as we go through our findings I   think we need to get better at filling in this 
box with a Target because that would help this   wide discrepancy that we're seeing here between 
45 days and 800 days moving on um issue six or   step six is what the difference between gaining 
or having a notice of viol violation sent and   gaining compliance that's 5 to 30 days um that's 
Florida statute then the code enforcement officer   can send the notice of hearing and hold a special 
magistrate hearing and there's a 10-day minimum   notice provision there and then we get into 
revised notice of violation so we'll probably   come back to this table as we read through the 
rest of this I wanted to introduce you to those   Target time frames thank you however for Mr Mrs 
schaer's inquiry a better metric as we said would   be the comparison of the date of the initial 
site visit to the date of notice violation sent   for the two properties City manager's office 
and code enforcement recently started looking   at this metric using data exported from bsna and 
that's just within the last two weeks city manager   I'm sorry to interrupt you can I ask a quick 
question just to make sure I understand and   this it's back on and I'm wanting to make sure 
so I don't get lost on page nine item number one okay that first complaint filed by cowboy on 21122 that's a an individual complaint right 
that's a complaint okay um then on item number   five Cowboy ATT tenant makes a complaint regarding 
rocks in the swell is this the same complaint or a   new complaint it's a new complaint okay so that's 
a second one yeah okay um you're on page nine yes okay thank you yes ma'am um back to page 11 okay that the target time frames um and then 
we talk about um we think I think a better way   to look at this is the difference between the 
date of the initial site visit and the date of   initial VI notice violation we we're finding that 
in our preliminary reports that they vary widely   but 90 days kind of s tends to be an average 
I think we could tighten that up over time   but I'm just looking at what actually has been 
happening in the newest Code Enforcement cases   in bsna it looks like 90 days is kind of the 
average so if we apply that 90 days to it and I   look at a date of initial site visit 7802 
to date 300 750 758 days that's a 668 day   variation from the 90-day average compared 
to what Peg received was a minus 45 days   so 116 Jackson is less than the average 
but it's most much closer to the average   being only 45 days difference 7802 is a 
statistical outlier with a difference of   668 days that's the bigger number and that to me 
jumps out now there's possible reasons for this   um prior to the issuance of the original notice 
violation the owner of 116 Jackson specifically   requested um notice of violation I said it was 
the original notice violation but Brian corrected   me today it was the revised notice of violation 
it wasn't the original one you sent me an email   today that said the owner Shane Reynolds mhm 
requested a notice of violation be forwarded to him yeah he requested both of the notices of 
violation he the original and the revised yes   sir okay so that had the effect possibly of 
speeding up that and for the property at 7802   from the time that code enforcement informed the 
owner that a permit was required to the time a   permit was issued was 540 days there's the bulk 
of it and from the time the permanent achieved   approv final inspection until code enforcement was 
informed the permit had received that inspection   with 124 days that's the bulk of the 758 days we 
can continue so this leads me to my finding number   two the owner at 7802 was afforded an excessive 
amount of time between the date of the initial   site visit and the date of the original notice 
violation a tool for the evaluation of such   time frames has not historically been employed 
applying this metric in this investigation has   been a useful tool to detect this anomaly and 
I conclude that statistical anomalies can cause   confusion and perceptions of selective enforcement 
developing and using a monitoring tool is critical   going forward so the report that we're doing 
will be my recommendation to get this report   right so I know that not every code enforcement 
case is the same violations are widely different   um applicate I'm sorry um owners are completely 
different attitudes and percept perceptions and   willingness so not every case can be viewed 
the same but if I have a report that says hey   something's been sitting out here for 700 days 
and no notice of violation I'm going to look   at that and say why give me the story and now 
now I've got a tool to look into that can help   tighten up these time frames we didn't have that 
I never had that tool before but we're developing   it now so that's my finding number two that the 
the anomaly I think has created this perception   that there's selective code enforcement and we 
can tighten that up I have a question though in   regards to what I was talking about because it 
looks to me and help me understand if I'm wrong   but it appears to me that 7802 had all of this 
time to before we got to where we got a resolution   on it right right but 116 Jackson literally have 
one that was filed in February of 2022 when did   that one get the first one original Lo violation 
was 45 days later okay when did it get resolved   since I'm looking at I feel like I'm looking 
at an apple versus an orange because one side   is one uh complaint which is the parking lot and 
that's 7802 and the other one at 116 I've got two   different types of complaints or two different 
complaints y that's a good point because what   happens when a new information comes to light that 
changes or adds to or deducts from the violation   code enforcement has to revise the notice so in 
this case it was revised um it started off being   about parking parking spaces and bathrooms and 
then it was revised just to added Pig Scher as   a respondent then city council remove or put a 
stay on all parking enforcement for restaurants   so it was revised for that reason and sent out 
again Peg schaer as respondent so those those   that one notice was revised twice yes but then 
we have the second one that comes in that's for   a totally different issue Y and if we were really 
doing a side by side comparison for your Metro   I would think we would want to look at a complaint 
versus a complaint not a complaint versus two   complaints we'll have that information too yes 
we will have that the revised dates and timelines   absolutely that will be I didn't mean to say they 
won't be that that information won't be available   it just it just feels like this is not really I'm 
not getting a a good solid picture of that because   I'm comparing one address with two complaints and 
one address with one complaint M we need to have   a tool that looks at all of that and we're 
developing that tool I I focused on the date   of visit to original notice violation because 
it revealed the statistical anomaly so wide   so for purposes of Mrs scher's complaint 
in my investigation that's where I zeroed   in on but it doesn't mean that's the 
only thing we'll be looking at in these reports um if we can move on uh that was Finding 
number two uh and that ends issue number two issue   number one and the page numbers is helpful because 
there's a few finding twos but I think just to   stay on track we are now moving to what page 
we're on page 12 um moving to issue two which   is near the top okay page 12 issue two thank 
you issue two was a claim that code enforcement   department had produced inaccurate and incorrect 
public information um Mrs Scher um provided um   reported to me that the March 24th Council agenda 
item which was titled update to the January 24th   special meeting contain inaccurate and incorrect 
public information specifically the item included   a table with the following information on the 
left you see it's a table called item and on   the right is table box called status this is from 
the update item city council request is shown in   the Box labeled item above and it's a request for 
a report showing all actions and correspondence   related to the properties the Box labeled status 
indicates that attachment for includes an update   for the requested enforcement activity report but 
when you go to attachment 4 it says records prior   to February 11th 2022 are not available so if we 
can scroll just a little bit Mia as evidence Mrs   schaer produced Untitled documentation 
from code enforcement department which   includes a timeline of activity for March 17th 
to January 9th I think these are the field notes   that disproved the assertion that records prior 
to 2022 are not available so obviously that was a   misstatement so the response in my investigation 
first I want to clarify that the date of the   council meeting was March 19th um Mr Dicky stated 
to me that he unintentionally misrepresented City   council's inquir to Brian Palmer instead asking 
Brian for all correspondents located in bsna Mr   Palmer stated that at the 1924 council meeting 
that these older records reside in laser fish and   are available so that was just a bad response 
because certainly those records did exist and   that was not the proper response in a follow-up 
meeting Mrs schaer stated that her perception   was that staff had purposefully omitted or decided 
not to include these records in response to City's   council's request because if they would have 
been included they would have revealed that   they remained previous violations which were 
never corrected Mrs shler stated that speaking   going back in time there were violations left 
uncorrected from 2017 and 18 this is before her   time even in the city that there were permits 
applied for and not completed that there was   one permit that was completed and some of the 
permitted work she had done which dealt with   those outstanding code enforcement items So Below 
as a timeline summary of Code Enforcement actions   permits issued from August 8th 2017 September 10th 
2019 in this timeline uh this was collaboratively   put together me working with with staff and and 
also with PEG so in 4617 this is going back many   years there was an original notice of violation 
issue this was when it was Do's bar was there   82718 the notice of violation was revised or yeah 
issued revised one city manager I just want to   emphasize for clarity yes it was Dy bars but it 
was the same owner the same owner yes sir okay   so tenant bod's bar same owner and then another 
tenant Y and those notice of violations were sent   to that owner they would have would have been to 
the Brian you can verify that on the 17th on on   um yes I believe so they were sent to the owner 
all notices go to the owner also then on 9/1918   the notice of violation was presented to the code 
board and it was taed until the next meeting um   for various reasons the board didn't have any more 
meetings until 12419 and the code enforcement at   that point did not hear it because at that time 
the owner was in the process of obtaining permits   so the case was not presented to the code 
enforcement board in March of 2019 Do's bar closes April of 2019 to December of 2019 Mrs 
Scher was remark modeling the tenant space   so right after Do's bar closed within a month 
Peg's out there working to fix this space up in   December of 2019 L ma opens so here are those 
violations that go back to 2017 we're going to   talk about all of them roughly in chronological 
order and what ended up happening with all of   them the first one was repair replace all in 
properly installed electrical equipment correct   and eliminate electrical hazards and provide 
GR gfcis on 82517 a permit was issued and it   did get a final inspection those violations 
were found in compliance I just want to note   that an additional electrical permit was issued 
in on in 2019 this was when Peg had the place   for some expansions to the electrical system 
city manager quick question how do we determine   what is the language we got final closed when a 
permit has been satisfied is it final yes final   inspection approve if you're as you're going 
through this when you when use words oh do we differentiate like final inspections the one 
you're on does that mean when you say a Find   permit received approved final inspections are we 
saying that that permit was finaled and closed out   yes sir okay got it um the next one was repair 
replace roof flashing gutters and downspouts   um that was a permit issued on December 11th 
of 2017 and that received all approved final   inspections and the violation was found in 
compliance then there was an issue about a   fixing a currently valid license tag register 
to the utility trailer obviously this didn't   require a permit but the trailer was removed then 
remove all dead plants refuse and debris again no   permit but in 929 2018 the property is found 
in compliance with that then the next one is   protect all exterior surface from the elements IND 
deay by painting or other covering uh 9 2018 that   property was painted found in compliance next 
one in accordance with city code maintain the   exterior and clean sanitary safe condition good 
repair clear it of nuisances liver Rush rubbish   debris objects Etc which may create a health 
fire hazard fences maintained not constitute   a blighting deterior effect neighborhood 9 2018 
property was found to be in compliance for that   one maintain the premises free of Filth garbage 
trash refu to be an operative machine scery and   clean up pet excretions from parts of the premises 
which are accessible to and used by persons 9   2018 that was found in compliance a fixed numbers 
indicating the official numbers for each building   for each front entrance clearly visible 111018 
that was found in compliance repair replace every   window and door frame not in sound condition good 
repair 12418 there was an original permit issued   but it expired 6 months later city manager yes 
ma'am sir when you're saying we're rolling through   these quick so when back in up to 920 it says um 
maintain the premise Fe I'm sorry uh AIX numbers   indicating the official numbers for each principal 
building front entance clearly visible sorry the   next one just below the second Bullet From The 
Bottom repair replace every window and door frame   which are not in sound condition good repair 
and weather tight in accordance with ipmc M the 124 okay that's that's not 1110 I'm sorry my 
eyes jumped on the bullet so we're saying on   124 the original permits issued yeah but it 
expired without an approved final inspection   on 62 2019 okay thank you sorry to interrupt 
that's okay um later um this is after 2019   so this is after Mrs schaer is involved uh 910 
2019 the permit was again issued and it received   approv file inspections and this violation was 
found in compliance so you see this is this is   where Peg is now involved and starting to take 
care of things also next one was provide safe   electrical wiring and devices on the premises 
in accordance with ipmc we can scroll uh on   62619 that permit was issued it received approved 
final inspections and the violation was found in   compliance next again we had uh repair buildings 
electrical mechanical and Plumbing Systems which   are unsafe unsanitary do not provide adequate 
egress or constitute a fire hazard otherwise   dangerous to human life on 62619 a permit was 
issued receive final inspections was VI final   comp liance and a related permit on 71 2019 
was issued receive final inspections violation   found in compliance next one was repair replace 
every leaking or defective Plumbing sewer line   in accordance 71119 permit was issued it was the 
received approved final inspections violation was   found in compliance paven properly Mark all 
vehicular use areas in accordance with city   code 72519 permit issued received approv final 
inspection found in compliance provide correct   number were parking SP places in accordance 
with city code this was not addressed by   permit because it was considered no longer to be 
a violation once studies closed and subsequently   city council approved an ordinance requiring no 
minimum parking permits for restaurants so that   corrected that repair replace all exterior 
doors door assemblies and Hardware 910 2019   permit issued received approved final inspection 
that's founding appliance repair replace all   interior surfaces including windows and doors 
not in good clean sanitary condition no permit   was required the premises had something when 
they closed new tenant corrected this so my   finding here is that one permit had expired was 
subsequently achieved of issued and achieved a   final completed in inspection so all of the above 
violations have been cured and the case was found   in compliance so it was just a bad statement to 
to say that there's no history prior to 20122   obviously there's a lot of history prior to 
22 and that was available it just was a mist statement okay so in 2018 the well 2017 the original notice of 
violation was issued yes sir this is prior   this was issued to the property owner and 
was this related to 120 it wasn't just 116   which I think do bar occupied at the time but 
it was related to or was it just did it relate   to 118 as well or 120 if we remember Mrs 
scher's request was that there was a lot   of history of violations on the premises yes and 
we were just looking at all of them so okay and then so 4617 the 1 and then a year goes 
by 4618 and 4 months before a revised is   issued correct and that revision the change 
if I remember from researching was because   there was folks living or seen to be living it 
added a few things maybe there was more I just   remember that was a difference to trigger 
the revision the revised notice violation   added things and so the finding is is that 
nothing happened in between that year and   four months from the original yeah our first 
permit issu was was August 25th of 2017 so two   days before the revised notice of violation 
the first permit was August 5th 2017 August   25th 2017 yes sir well that but the scroll 
a little more Mia okay right here 25th 2017 okay and then the the Revis noov goes out two 
days later August 27th okay and so at that   point I think we had the the the I went back and 
had to the old audio and listen to that meeting   the September 19th 2018 the noov was presented the CB to the next 
meeting yeah it was but they discussed it and   Mr Reynolds presented in Robinson and all the 
staff in those minutes I think say that they   wanted to bring it back and here and he was 
trying to get some things handled in front   of the code enforcement board Janu or 2019 comes 
and it's saying there was a meeting however the   owner was in the process of obtaining permits 
and the case was not presented to the CB and so the board wanted I think compliance and we 
were saying we never brought it back to the   board I guess the issue is there these open 
notice of violations but if the board never   had another say in that and then I think 
we went to the magistrate system shortly after okay I'm following um so Mrs scher's statement that there 
currently are violations uncorrected from   201718 my investigation did not produce that 
uh fact they appear to all have been addressed   from 2017 and 18 um she did say that there 
were per there was permits applied for not   completed yet there was one that I found 
um there was one permit that was completed   there was more than one actually and indeed 
some of the work permitted um was work that   she had done to deal with some of those out 
so so she closed the loop on a lot of these too okay okay Council any other 
questions on this one I just wanted   to ask a question about the uh timeline 
summary at the very top of page 13 4617 8278 is the revision yes sir okay so over a over a year later yes there 
was a revision and no record of that   going to the code enforcement 
board after between 4617 and 82718 and again that's one of those metrics that 
the new reporting should catch that's certainly   a question I would ask because if you're I 
am a year later after notice of violation   was issued and hasn't gone to code 
enforcement board I'm going to ask why okay and and so basically all the issues 
cited in the noov that began in 4617 I have   it here I'm looking at the old we're saying all 
of those were brought into compliance through   each line by line but the board never had had 
a chance to know that that our process is the   code enforcement officer saw that well 
it says permits were being obtained yes   at the time but then they did end up coming 
into compliance they started checking them   off clicking them off over time and 
then Peg finished it and brought it home okay can so anything else on that one we are on page 15 is the next page 
mayor we're ready to move on to issue three Council want to move move 
on thank you U you said 15 yes   sir sorry here was my I I was looking 
for another one it says on page 14 all   of the above violations have being cured 
and incompliance that's the finding yes sir and we know this because of 
how I mean how did you verify all   of that that all of this is in compliance 
because I think we all see this building   and when you read 201718 you can understand today 
we see it was there any subsequent inspections   there would have been a a compliance inspection 
for all of these Brian you would do those for all   of them for for what I'm sorry we're referring 
to H how were we able to make the statement that   one permit expired but subsequently achieved 
completed all of the above violations have been   cured and the case was found in violation how do 
we know that all the above violations have been   cured because each one of them we reviewed each 
one each violation and for each one a permit was   issued and received an approved final inspection 
or in the case of the trailer the trailer was   removed in the case of dead plants refuges and 
Bre there were removed no permit in other words   so the things that didn't require permit got done 
and the things that did require permit did get   done also and that the dates of the permits and 
the dates of the approved final inspections I'm   sorry the dates of the permits are there and 
each one of them received an approved final inspection okay and that applied to all of 
the properties 116 118 112 that's the whole   record that I asked Brian Palmer to bring me 
everything he's got for anything he's got on   11 12 14 16 18 Jackson so there was an 
issue about railings and I think those   that's those railings were not ever replaced um 
that this this report is about August 8th 2017   through September 10th 2019 any violations that 
happen after September 10th 2019 are not going   to be in this timeline this was about going back 
into that timeline only but I was there an issue   with railings the railings came up subsequent to 
2019 Brian am I correct about that I I believe so   that would be part of the everything the 20225 
case I believe so I would have to look I I don't   know that off the top of my head of when it was 
so we go in we go into bsna to verify that the   permits were final and then if permits were 
filed final that means an inspection was done   on all the addresses meanwhile Peg's coming in 
and she sees these issues she starts fixing the   rent to be the same that existed she didn't she 
probably wasn't aware that some had already been   corrected before she got there well I don't 
think she was questioning all of the issues   that exist in 1718 she pointed out issues that 
such as issues with people being in the building   and stuff from my understanding like there's no 
those issues existed I guess my exercise is to   understand how we determine that compliance was 
obtained because when I visually see I don't it   doesn't make sense to me how we concluded on that 
particular building that all of those violations   from the 2018 notice of hearing that went out 
all the way down the line were completed which   violations have you witnessed sir that still 
appear to be violations um well but I mean certainly the record should show the complaints of 
of Miss schaer but certainly after the fire right   that's yeah that and I know we're going to get to 
that that's after 2019 though but in the in in the meantime okay let's let's move on 
to that okay yeah this is just a   snapshot from 2017 to 2019 things 
definitely happened after that too um if we're ready we can move on to number 
three mayor yes sir okay this one is a claim that   code enforcement department records received do 
not match code enforcement records now available   so Mrs schaer um reported to me that records 
received don't match records available she   produced printed documents of four notices of 
violations all related to that case 22-15 and   each one of them is listed there um 32822 616 6687 
and they have different information the third one   has a different respondent um than the other three 
um but they all say um certified mailing numbers   ending with number 9447 you see that for all four 
of them she asks how can one certified mailing   number apply to all four different letters 
additionally she produced a photograph of   the cover page of a notice violation for the same 
case uh 328 2 addressed to respondent Peggy Scher   and indicating that she can't find cannot find 
the remainder of the document but she believed   that it likely had the same certified mailing 
number I think that's kind of irrelevant at   this point because the response will handle all 
that number three response each of the official   record copies were sent by certified mail 
and a copy of each official record copy is   to be retained accompanied by a receipt of such 
unique certified mailing number the reason that   9447 was reflected in the documents submitted 
to the city manager by Miss dollar was because   these were not official record copies these 
documents referenced incorrect certified mail   numbers because these documents were from 
unofficial working draft versions working   draft versions are subject to copying editing 
pasting saving over Etc this was an artifact from   a previous copy and paste and save over so the 
question is why did Mrs Scher possess unofficial   working draft versions unofficial working draft 
versions are generated in a template in BSN   which has been set up for staff to use in 
the system staff's view of bsna allows these   templates to be viewed and edited the bsna 
platform has a feature to make file viewable   to public this is via a toggle to switch 
on public view or switch off public view   for each document in recent months code 
enforcement staff was directed to make   all documents for 116 Jackson Avenue viewable 
to the public on the bsna platform as a result   these unofficial working draft versions of the 
notices violations were switched on to be made   viewable to the public however over time it was 
discovered that these working draft templates   could not be opened via the public portal when an 
attempt to open them was made on the public portal   these files would download as unopenable zip files 
this is not helpful and these documents are now   being switched off to public view this problem 
doesn't occur with PDF files or jpegs because she   couldn't view these documents Mrs schaer contacted 
Mrs Palmer and stated that she couldn't open them   she requested that Mr Palmer provide these records 
now remember these were unofficial working draft   templates she was not instructed at the time 
that these records would be unofficial draft   working documents had she been so instructed this 
confusion would not have existed consequently the   documents provided to Mrs schaer and fulfillment 
of her request were not official records   code enforcement staff was trained by bsna that 
users had the option to save draft documents in   bsna and revise them as needed from the time 
code enforcement staff began using bsna until   approximately April 23 working draft documents 
were routinely edited and saved over in bsna   these were unofficial working versions existing on 
bsna which are different from the official record   copies these unofficial working versions were 
provided to Mrs schaer in response to her request   was M was Mr Palmer aware that the documents he 
provided to Mrs schaer were unofficial work and   draft documents no why not because he didn't 
review the documents prior to sending them and   the documents that were requested were public 
record indeed they were and were forwarded to   her due to her request for this property the 
the official record documents bearing the code   enforcement officer signature and including 
the certified mailing receipt were uploaded to   bsna just last month on 46 1624 and they're now 
viewable as PDFs why did these not get uploaded   until 41624 Mr Palmer stated to me that he had 
been looking at unti looking at the titled files   in bsna which appeared to match the titled 
file names of the official record documents   why was it addressed at this time or how was it 
discovered in the course of this investigation   on 41624 I noted that the documents on bsna did 
not bear the code enforcement officer signature   I relayed this to Mr Palmer at this point Mr 
Palmer understood the nature of the problem   and made the proper documents available to the 
public to view on bsna and made the unhelpful   working draft documents not visible to public 
view this practice of creating unofficial working   versions on bsna has since been discontinued 
code enforcement staff has been directed to   remove such documents from public view across 
the platform all open cases have been completed   currently staff is working on the closed cases 
when this effort is complete no working draft   documents will be viewable to the public via 
bsna and there will be official record copies   in PDF to clarify an official record document 
on bsna will be a PDF it will bear the officer   signature and a scan of the green mail certified 
receipt when available so people can still request   public records for working draft that's still 
a public record if you want it the problem is   it needs to be notated that it's a draft document 
so there's no confusion so all of those templates   need to be revised to be draft so this won't 
happen again so here's my finding when a public   records request for working draft documents 
is fulfilled confusion can be created as to   what is or is not an official record document 
when such draft document is not marked as draft   I did some additional investigative research 
because it goes a little deeper than this mayor   unless we want to pause and ask anything about 
finding number one Council we on page 16 yes sir finding any questions or thank you okay moving 
on um the original notice of notice violation   official record addressed parking spaces 
and bathrooms it was sent on 32822 to Mr   Reynolds as the owner the official record with 
corresponding certified mail receipt ending in   9294 were uploaded to bsna on 41624 you want to 
share however the working copy version of the   document which resided in bsna contained a copy 
and paste artifact on the last page indicating   certified mailing number that famous 9447 number 
that was repeated the original notice of violation   was then revised the purpose of the revision 
approximately five months had passed with no   progress initiated by the property owner in an 
effort to compel corrective efforts the code   enforcement officer indicated that he revised 
the original notice violation as follows the   document now included the word revised one 
copy was printed and prepared for mailing   to Mr Reynolds it is unknown who was the named 
respondent because we don't have a copy of that   the working draft document was revised to name 
Mrs schaer as respondent and prepared for mailing   to Mrs schaer the violations remain the same as 
the original notice violation both documents were   sent via certified mail on 8422 Mr Reynolds was 
mailed with certified mail ending 9430 Mrs Scher   certified mailing ending in 9446 7 official record 
copies were not made of these revised documents   but certified mail receipts were kept these 
certified mail receipts were uploaded to bsna   on 41624 Mrs schaer has indeed produced a copy 
of her received document finding number one this   is actually finding number two for this that's a 
typo revising a notice violation with a different   respondent name is a significant change of status 
that warrants retaining a copy official record   copies were not made of the first revised notice 
of violations and this violates departmental practice finding number two although copies 
were not made of the original revised notice   violations it's possible that similar notice 
violations were sent to sep separate singular   respondent parties if this is accurate it 
would confuse the record in the case where   there are multiple respondents departmental 
policy should be that all should be indicated   on the notice of violation departmental policies 
has been to have a singular respondant there   is no departmental policy regarding whether 
or not it is appropriate to notice separate   singular respondent parties so I know that's a 
little confusing as a statement but the way I   can explain it is it it appears that this 
original notice of violation was revised   and one of them was definitely sent to Mrs 
schaer and she was the only named respondent   the other one may very well have had only Shane 
Reynolds as the only respondent and that's   confusing that one case would go separately to two 
different people it seems a better practice to you   just put both of them on one and they both get a 
copy of that so that's that's a finding of mine   that um we need to address the notice of violation 
was again revised to remove the violation   regarding the parking spaces because city council 
had placed a stay on all code enforcement related   parking spaces at restaurants this second revised 
notice violation was also in two parts um part   one identified Miss schaer as the respondent it 
had the bathrooms The Filling of the retention   area it was a cc copy to Mr Reynolds dated 61623 
actually mailed on 71923 we have the record copy   of this as well as the certified mail receipt 
ending in 8072 it was returned as unsigned for   it contains an error on the signature page 
indicating the number should have been 9447   that was just an error part two identified Mrs 
schaer as a respondent and addressed bathrooms   in the filling of the retention area same thing 
notice was mailed to miss schaer and is dated 616   actually again mailed on 71923 we have the record 
copy mail receipt ending in 8089 it contains that   same ER on the page indicating it ends in 
9447 so that leads to my final finding here   which should be label finding number four the 
second revised notice of violation only named   Mrs schaer as the respondent it did not name the 
owner as respondent this violates departmental practice I note there was a third revised notice 
that was created it was dated 8723 but it was   never issued it also addressed the retention 
area and plumbing fixtures it was created but   never signed and it was never mailed it is a 
working draft it is not an official record copy   it contains a an error in the title it references 
second revised notice violation but should have   been titled third it also contains an error on the 
last page ending certified mailing number 9447 no   certified mailing number because it was never 
mailed um I only mention this because it was in   b bsna as switched on visible to the public 
but when Miss Scher tried to download it it   was a zip file and she requested it for her public 
records request just acknowledging that a draft EX   of existed of that that was never issued and that 
ends issue number three mayor yes mayor perm let   me um the notice was mailed to Mr Reynolds um 
I'm looking at uh this second revised notice of   violation it was dated 61623 but it was actually 
mail 71923 why is there that gap between the dat   you want to address that Brian yes I can answer 
that um I wasn't here I had a family emergency   so I left and I asked the notice of violation 
not to be sent the the the date actually should   have been changed to 719 on the letter itself um 
it had already been put in an envelope I would   imagine and everything was already put on it and 
he just sent it when I got back and I think that's   an important observation because when somebody 
gets a notice of violation it starts a ticking   of a Time clock and if you don't even get it till 
30 days after you your clock may be expired before   you even open it and I think that's that needs 
to be another Finding in this report I've already   noted that and why because family emergencies come 
up but why would you not want to send the letter   and have the have her have the time to respond 
the the Florida statute actually states that   the um the Violator once notified has that time 
by the when they sign for the notice it doesn't   by the date that the letter is um is dated or 
when it's sent through the mail it actually   starts when they actually sign for the letter 
so whatever the green card that's why we do   the um the certified whenever the green card 
is signed for that's actually when the date   starts or the time frame I should say but but 
if if I was a violator and I received that I   wouldn't know that I'm not going to I'm not 
going to make any statements that are untrue   I'll look at our notices I I believe it may 
be stated in the notice but um I Anthony is   the one who did the actual notices and the 
legal on there he may know that off hand I   don't but I can more than happy look that 
up for you that'd be something nice to add   to the notices if it's not already there 
that the clock starts when you receive this well I think you're talking about a clock 
that's defined in Florida statute right back   to your table that you created when the noov 
162 CH and okay and so the date the notice of   violation is sent they need to pursue a hearing 
to get compliance state law says that you can't   just demand a hearing on most things I guess 
but they need notice within at least 30 days   and I were working through that today 
and so that's the notice of violation violation and I think it does say from the 
receipt and that's why the certified mail is   so important yeah so the date of the letter really 
doesn't it's bad customer service matter as much   as from the date they receive right to to if you 
choose to pursue a hearing okay I understand and   with that issue number three I'm done 
unless there's any other questions mayor council we're on page stay in on um 17 I guess we 
just got through uh four we're going to four which   is on page 18 okay Council good to go on all right 
Issue four this is a claim that code enforcement   department made an untrue statement at the March 
24th Council meeting we only send notices to the   property owner uh Miss schaer uh reported to me 
that records disproved this assertion the item   above that clim the code enforcement department 
deceptively manipulated alter to cover of mistakes   this item indicates notices to both property 
owner and the Tenant so um this we learned   a lot since then um number four response in a 
follow-up meeting Mrs schaer was presented the   transcript below and confirmed that the statement 
was made at the January 24th 204 council meeting   the special meeting included a statement from 
Mr Palmer on this topic the transcript is From   Below it's from the YouTube video it does contain 
um YouTube M mistakes as sometimes happens that   I did not correct um so going to the fourth 
line down um well let's just read the whole   thing uh it starts at the top are you finished 
for now Council just want to make sure everyone   understands what you just say CU you know this 
is a YouTube transcript right yes and there are   mistakes that we we found which one of them was 
it says shower and I believe it should have said   showerer we have not obtained a verified script 
by listening from 104 to 105 but generally this   is generally correct it's just got warts and all 
from YouTube's translation okay that's I just want   to say that's really important right that we have 
the right words yes sir and so okay um and and the   mayor's talking or Don's talking I guess it says 
are you finished for now council member Davis okay   council member Willis I have one quick question 
for Dave this is council member Willis speaking   how do you how do you differentiate on a notice 
violation between the renter occupant and their   property owner because it seems some of these 
notices of violations that went to the shower   I think it's supposed to say m schaer should have 
gone to the property owner can I answer that this   is Brian Palmer speaking the notice of violation 
actually does go to the property owner we courtesy   copy the tenant so we send a courtesy copy to 
the tenant to make sure that they're aware of   the violation that's on the property but the 
notice of violation does go to the property   owner and the reason why we send the notice 
of the violation a violation of the property   owner I think it means to the property owner not 
because it's you know it's also in Florida statute   that tells us how to do that however we send 
the notice to the property owner because the   property owner is ultimately responsible if if the 
magistrate decides to place a lean on the property   the tenant's not affected but the property owner 
is so that's why we always send the notice to the   property owner the transcript does not include the 
phrase we only send notices to the property owner   however it does include the phrase we always send 
the notice to the property owner Mrs schaer was   named as respondent on the first revised notice 
of violation as well as the second because the   property owner had not made any progress to 
our compliance and we were trying to identify   by another way to fix this this was done an 
alternate attempt to compel compliance and Mr   Reynolds was cced on Mrs schaer's correspondence 
in a follow-up meeting with Mrs schaer after   reviewing the transcript she agreed that there is 
no evidence of the use of the word only however   she claims that the language that was used implied 
that tenants are never named as respondents while   she has direct knowledge that she had been named 
a respondent she stated that the dubious quality   of this statement supports her ception that codee 
enforcement staff members make untrue statements   publicly staff has later clarified that there was 
no intent to imply that tenants are never named   as respondents staff 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 so my finding is there was no untrue 
statement made however in the absence of written   departmental policy oral statements can introduce 
scrutiny and differing interpretations of intent   there is no departmental policy defining 
when it is appropriate to Courtesy copy   a tenant and when it is appropriate to name the 
tenant as respondent having such a policy would   have made Mr Palmer's response more conclusive 
now I did have an opportunity to meet with the   mayor this afternoon about um my finding that 
there was no untrue statement made and in that   regard the mayor and I discussed the last last 
line of the transcript Mia if you could scroll   back just a little bit last line it says affected 
but the property owner is so that's why we always   send the notice to the property owner to that 
point the mayor and I discussed Mr Palmer says   we always send the notice to the property 
owner how is it that the first and second   revised notice of violation only went to Mrs 
schaer as respondent that would make that an   untrue statement Mr Palmer clarified this evening 
to me in the during the break that a cc went to   Mr um Reynolds so when he says we always send them 
to send we always send the notice to the property   owner he's clarifying that they may not be the 
named respondent but they get a courtesy copy at least okay so we're saying that this 
so This St statement finding there   was no untrue statements made still appears to be accurate you stand by that statement yeah 
because these records were cced to Mr um   owner Shane Reynolds there was never a time when 
Miss schaer received a notice of violation and   the property owner received nothing no sir the 
property the owner received every letter every   time mhm unless he refused it yes unless 
he unless I got it back in the mail yes sir okay well I I have a hard time with that but 
I I I think that council member Willis who   certainly can speak for his own intent the way 
I understood his question is he's saying how   do he he really broke into two parts he said 
Dave how do you differentiate on a notice of   violation between the the ENT and the property 
owner that's kind of a general question and he   explains why he's asking that because it seems 
some of these notices of the violation went to   the shaer it says shower but I believe it 
says Miss schaer probably um that went to   miss schaer should have gone to the property owner 
so he's specifically saying and acknowledging that   that Miss schaer received the violation and 
the property owner did not receive and we're saying we did send it to the property owner we 
courtesy copy the tenant in that case that's   not true we did not copy the tenant right it 
was we sent it took respond to Scher and we   copied the landlord sir so I can't that's 
just not that's why I say that that's not   from my understanding what happened and so we 
send a courtesy copy to the tenant what we're   saying is it no you flip it basically that's 
what happened is it went tenant copy landlord um and then uh so that's why we always notice 
uh send the notice to the property owner um okay council member Willis anybody want to speak 
on that or hopefully I didn't well the original   intent of the question was in reference to 
the uh public records comments or documents   that Miss Sher had received that had the wrong 
uh certified mail numbers on them uh that was   the reason I asked the question because they 
were clearly the draft documents were clearly   addressed to her um and I was just trying 
to find out where that how that could be   because I did not know that that was part 
of just a uh public records request at the time any other comments I just want to 
um reiterate that recommendations are are   forthcoming for all of these items on this 
one um it's definitely obvious to me that   um I'm going to have the city clerk involved in 
understanding the processes regarding official   records and public records what's visible to 
public what how documents are distributed by a   public records request with the safeguards of this 
is just a draft unless it is an actual notice of   violation with the signature on it we need put 
safe important appropriate safeguards in place   to make sure we do not ever have to repeat this 
again this has been a big Learning lesson for us thank you anything else on this one um I think 
we're moving on to the next item five do issue   five do you want to continue or take a break mayor 
you want to forge on ahead well let's let's do   this let's see how much we have so we're on page 
19 just turn to 20 uh page 20 issue five one two   three it's really not a full Ben that would I'm 
just seeing four five six seven there's seven more   pages want a quick break uh I think that would be 
very helpful with seven pages left we'll reconvene   what do we need 510 it's 828 five and and just as 
a matter of okay let's take five we'll reconvene e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ready to go ready okay we are uh at 8:38 
p.m. we'll get started here in about 10 seconds okay all right it is 8:38 p.m. we 
are reconvening I call the meeting back   to order for our our special council meeting 
believe city manager was about to move on to   the next issue number five found on page 20 city 
manager ex yes council member Davis I'm pardon   hours Mee we have to make motion it's hour go 
on or is there no set date or time 10 o' 10 o' I don't know if it's a 4 hour but if it is I 
would agree uh I think it's yeah I just wanted to verify okay I'll continue researching 
that uh issue five is claim that false   information was recorded 
into the public record and distributed provided me with three photographs 
descrip the photographs with me if anybody want Lisa sorry issue five claim that false information 
was recorded in the public record and distributed   uh Mrs schaer provided me with three photographs 
I do have them here if anybody wants to see them   I can pass them down photograph one shows 
an exterior area and an interior area in   the background the following contents are in 
order from foreground to background outside   there's The Rusted frame of a bench swing 
a washing machine a refrigerator and CAU   tape covering an open garage door inside the 
garage door there are buckets a dryer a stack   of lumber a metal table and unidentifiable cies 
the written description printed on this picture   says picture taken of fire garage after Brian 
Palmer emailed staff and myself stating garage   was checked today and has been cleared of debris 
Monday June 12th 2023 4:20 p.m. photograph two is   a photo showing what appears to be the same 
exterior area but from a different angle of   view with the following contents a rusted metal 
bench swing with torn seat Fabric and a washing   machine the written description picture taken of 
fire garage after Brian Palmer emailed staff and   myself stating garage was checked today and 
has been cleared of debris Monday June 12th   2023 4:38 p.m. in photograph number three is 
a photo showing a partially closed garage door   which appears to have suffered fire damage 
the written response pick of the garage door   after Brian Palmer emails Todd Morley repaired 
garage door and now opens and closes properly   Tuesday January 9th 2024 454 p.m. and again I have 
those three photos if anybody wants to see them sure so they are in order as they were described my response as for the two photos 
d dated June 12th 2023 um actually they're   they're all dated June 12th 2023 is it no one them 
January 9th um refer to email sport correspondence   timeline that we talked about before and this 
email was on June 12th 2023 at 12:56 p.m. Mrs   schaer requested a status update regarding the 
garage attached to 118 Jackson now the garage   attached to 118 Jackson was a a focal point 
for Miss schaer and code enforcement because   there was a fire had been back there and some 
contents had been moved outside of the garage   those are the the swing and the refrigerator 
and the what the various things so she asked   for a status update regarding the garage attached 
to 18 18 Jackson uh two minutes later that same   email Mr Palmer forwards the inquiry to code 
enforcement officer um an hour later Mrs Sha   clarifies a point about a different item on 
this email thread at 4:17 p.m. code enforcement   officer sends an email to miss schaer and others 
indicating the garage was checked today and it   has been cleared of debris the code enforcement 
officer and miss schaer both later clarified that   the email was referring to the area outside of the 
garage so everything that's outside of the garage   in those photos not the stuff inside the garage 
the stuff outside is what they're concerned about   Mrs schaer photos schaer's photo indicates the 
photo of of debris was taken 3 minutes later at   4:20 p.m. so referencing the email from The Code 
Enforcement Officers at 4:17 p.m. he said it was   all clear she takes a photo at 4:20 p.m. 3 minutes 
later the code enforcement officer stated that he   recalled having visited the property on June 12th 
that same day prior to sending the email but he   was unsure of the time and that he saw no debris 
outside the garage given this information the code   enforcement officer concluded that someone had 
to have moved the debris to the outside area in   the time between when he left the property and 
the time of the photo at 4:20 p.m in a follow-up   meeting with Mrs schaer she indicated that she 
is baffled as to why the code enforcement officer   would say it was cleared she added that the debris 
had not been moved since December she inquired if   it was possible that the code enforcement officer 
deemed the area clear because Mr Reynolds or some   of persons said it was clear she asked if the code 
enforcement officer actually laid eyes on it on   June 12th 2023 same for the garage door next page 
what was the actual complaint made by m schaer the   complaint was the garage attached to 118 Jackson 
has not been cleaned or secured city manager   inquiry did the code enforcement officer have 
legal authority to cite a code violation for the   debris outside the garage this was in a space that 
was not her her tenant space this is why I asked   this question yes there there was no fence at the 
time simply a piece of plywood that was placed to   block access this made the area viewable from the 
parking lot area to the east so that satisfied my   inquiry there finding number one 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 
12th 23 as Mrs Charlotte claims both have stood   by their respective statements and that's as far 
as I can dig down on that and that's one of those   areas where Mr Scher says we don't agree you know 
I agree it's it's he said she said and that that's   where it ends I have a question city manager in 
one of the photos it's um noting that this the it   took a picture there's a photo it has it occurred 
after it was the debris was cleaned up but it's   back outside and in it there's crime scene tape or 
construction tape caution tape do do we know when   they went out when the officer went out there and 
looked at it he stated that he was there on June   12th prior to sending his email at 4:17 p.m. okay 
so this photo taken after the fire uh garage after   uh Brian you called an emailed staff this 
supposedly he pushed everything outside and   put up tape what he's claiming is that it was 
clear when he was there and it was not clear   when the photo was taken he's not saying where 
it came from or how it got there thank you that   leads to my second finding finding number 
two code enforcement officers documenting   and photo documenting is crucial to resolving 
disputes such as this there was no established   departmental practice regarding the documentation 
and or photo documentation of every violation   compliance and site visit and obviously you'll 
know a recommendation will be forthcoming on that   as for the photo with the date of January 9th this 
is the garage door it shows only a garage door   partially closed note it does not provide evidence 
of the door's ability to fully function properly   um I made a clarification note the first time 
the city manager received this email thread was   on 32624 um and um not earlier as indicated um 
that's when Mr Morrison forward it prior to that   the thread was among in between Mr Morrison 
Mr Dicky Mr Palmer and that thread on 1924 Mr   Palmer indicated that as of that date the garage 
door had been repaired and now opens and closes   properly at the followup meeting Mrs schaer stated 
that there were two garage door openings but only   one had a garage door the other opening does not 
have a garage door nor is is it required to have   one also Mrs schaer asked did the code enforcement 
officer try to open and close the garage door or   did the code enforcement officer deem the garage 
door operational because Mr Reynolds or some other   person said it was operational Mr Palmer later 
clarified that the code enforcement officer   stated that he did not attempt to open or close 
the garage door himself he observed the garage   door open and then observed the garage door closed 
partway Mr Reynolds informed the code enforcement   officer the garage door opens and closes with some 
effort with this statement the code enforcement   officer made the assumption that the door was 
capable of closing to 0% open Mr Palmer also   later clarified that the code enforcement officer 
stated that he did not observe the door fully   closed in other words to the point that it was 0% 
open so that led me to well can we access the door   now to see if it's operational it has since been 
boarded up on the outside can we see it from the   inside if it was broken then it could still 
possibly be broken on 5324 just a few days ago   property owner was contacted by code enforcement 
requested access to the garage to see if the door   was in fact operational property owner stated 
he was not in town he does not authorize the   city to enter his property he also stated the 
case has gone to the special magistrate his   property has been leaned and he will be selling 
his property soon in does not want to deal with   this anymore so we took that as a no leads to 
finding number three without having seen the   door fully travel 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 instructed the code 
enforcement manager that the door opened and   closed properly accepting verbal information 
should not be a substitute for verification and those are my three findings 
on issue number five mayor thank you so on the it's the verbal again I think 
as you're finding right that that we   are and in this particular case the property owner who has had I think the same owner through 
issues that we know go back to 2017 and the at this point we're trying to secure the 
building and make it safe with the magistrate   um order to secure the building and the 
knowledge that people were going in and   out has been from what I see longstanding 
understanding that and so this owner also   has not been easy to communicate with and I 
think documentation shows there's been issues   in the midst of that with with communication 
um and so we relied on this person who has not been easy to communicate with to be 
accurate and I and I think while verbal is not it's who is providing the verbal under 
this and with a magistrate order is where I think if we today that particular opening has 
a board over it I understand yes sir but what   would it show if you could go in and see that 
it doesn't this is something that Peg and I   discussed that if it was never actually capable 
of closing to 0% and it was boarded up chances   are nobody's been bothered out to fix it to 
make sure it can close to 0 per. so we can   get out and see it from the inside we can see if 
it closes to 0 per. that's why I that's something   worth doing and and Peg and I were trying to 
make that happen and but if it doesn't close   to 0% what does that tell us it tells us that 
there was a misstatement that it said the the   door what was the wording um well I think was 
in fact operational it it okay so it might move   some but it if it doesn't perform the function 
of closing I wouldn't call it operational I mean   if my screen door didn't close and mosquitoes 
were getting in the house I wouldn't say if   there's something blocking it I wouldn't say it's 
functional it's supposed to close supposed to   keep the mosquitoes out if if the garage door 
is not capable of closing then it's not fully operational and we didn't have any evidence that 
it was fully operational all we had evidence was   we saw it he saw it open up he saw it closed 
partially but there's no evidence that we have   he says goes all the way photographs right so 
a photograph for code enforcement is really   important for things like this for compliance 
yeah just to show here it is here's a picture   of it closed it's a date time stamp photo 
same with the debris outside the garage if   you had taken a photo the debris is not there 
on June 12th at 1 p.m M that that goes a long   way because Peg's providing photos that the 
debris is still there yeah minutes later yeah yes this this garage door that's 
burnt is that's in front of that's   this I believe so Brian is that correct 
yes Peg is that correct that's a garage   door in the background of the pictures 
with the debris she Peg took the photos and this is the door well I know you know looking at the pictures 
if this stuff was moved in the garage and then   moved back out for some unknown reason all the 
cords and everything are in the exact same spot   they were before so how can you move something 
in and out and the cords and the wires all be   in the exact same spot it's possible I mean I 
mean I could do it but but I understand there   were some women living there one woman living 
there I don't know who it was but excuse I've   seen a woman move a refrigerator it can happen 
these aren't before and after pictures are   they no so there wouldn't have been a moved 
refrigerator there was no before pictures   okay so after pictures did he didn't have all 
I think we had was well but I mean the position   of the cord doesn't matter right well if he if 
he said it was gone at one and this was 420 and it's it's he said she said they're 
both standing by their statements firmly I I want to make sure I understand what 
council Willis is saying is that we're comparing   there is no before but you're January 9 okay 
that's January so the two on June 12th the   time 420 and 438 so 4 the 420 is the picture 
taken of the fire garage after uh Brian Palmer   emailed staff and myself saying garage has been 
checked today and has been cleared a debris that   that picture it doesn't say that was taken by 
Peg right so there wasn't a at0 enforcement   officer got there he didn't take a picture no 
pictures right um yeah that timeline on page 20   uh with the time stamps right below number five 
response June 12th it started at 12:56 p.m. when   Miss schaer requested a status update and very 
quickly and impressively I would say officer   Palmer two minutes later literally forwards it 
to code enforcement officer Robinson I assume   yes sir and it's reasonable to assume that he 
went out after that but he said he might have   gone out out there in the morning he said he 
had been going out there with some frequency   he just didn't record when he what what time 
he was there but he he says he was sure he   was there on June 12th well my thing is is why 
would miss schaer at 1256 want an update and I   think I've got enough relationship to think she 
she didn't email thinking that it's finished   she looks out back and she sees it yeah and 
I think she's saying hey what what's going   on here and the so she emails at one she saw 
oh these don't have 1:00 Tim stamp he saw an   issue and then it was forwarded two minutes later 
from officer Palmer to to officer Robinson and then yeah it's where am I missing there it seems 
like something's at 4:00 if if you have 417 is   when the code for officer responds to Mrs schaer 
thank you saying it's been cleared okay and then   doesn't miss schaer at then so at 4:17 so 
about 1:00 she inquires a few hours later   code enforcement officer says the garage 
was checked today and it has been cleared   of debris so so she leaps to her camera she 
goes out there three minutes later and takes   a photo and says how can this be well at 1:00 we 
have knowledge that the the people we serve the   citizens the business owners has got an issue 
and then at four we say it's good and then she responds literally 3 minutes later with 
a photo showing that it's not good I have   no reason to to think that at 1:00 when miss 
scherson it it looked any different than than   at 4 o' I think that that's the issue that 
that I see and and from these findings it's uh officer Palmer saying it's cleared to debris and these pictures mean that someone 
went out if he got it at 1:00 the soonest he   could have got there was two minutes I mean 
it's right down the road right 102 but he   says he might have been there before earlier in 
the day too because he had been going out there   with some frequency yeah he's not given us a time 
for when he was there right can I else real quick   can I just make a clarification I'm not the one 
that stated you just said officer Palmer I'm not   the one that stated it was clear to debris 
you were relating the information that the   code enforcement officer gave you no the garage 
was checked today and it was cleared of debris   was sent by the code enforcement officer in an 
email out to everyone I sent the I sent the the   um email to him I forwarded an email to him um 
on at 12:58 asking him to respond I just wanted   to make sure because that was just mentioned 
did he log at an action that I mean like in   bsna was there any field notes or record that he 
went to the site does he remember when he went   to the site he he REM he says he remembers 
typing the email and that he was there that day but no there's no other record okay um so at at 417 GR was teched they cleared a 
debris uh 30 minutes later clearly shows the   debris was not cleared response or no 
a few minutes later and then the next   day on 6:13 so I'm putting myself in her 
shoes she says it's being clear today and   she's you know it's on her back front row 
seats of this no it's not here's a photo she doesn't get a reply that day she doesn't get a reply until the next day on 6:13 I don't know if that report says this but 
I know that's according to the timeline we were   all provided uh by Peg according to her uh email 
records is it on 613 Chris Robinson email back   and stated we will have Shane 
either remove the appliances and   damage swing or store them in the garage 
I don't have a copy of that in front of me the why wasn't that I guess why wasn't that 
state stated like that same day or I guess   I'm I'm having trouble understanding mayor I'm 
not when it was resolved not familiar with the   document you're looking at um there's a timeline 
email from Peg I believe to all of us the entire   Council and I believe you are on it I don't have 
I just don't have that in front of me right now   okay okay well this is a part of I guess the our 
findings as a whole so all right that we we take   photographs when things are not in compliance and 
I think we're saying we should take photographs   when are in compliance and and we typically do 
take photographs when things are in compliance   or are we going around just verbally saying 
things are in compliance with no evidence well   that that's my comment here finding number 
two there's no established departmental   practice regarding photo documenting every 
violation every compliance every site business   but isn't a it isn't it about a preponderance of 
evidence isn't that the word that it uses and that   we really want to have evidence and we provide our 
code enforcement with cameras and the I guess that   is a question how do they take photographs do 
they have their own camera but you use the app   that time stamps and date stamps it is that a city 
city issued cell phone yes and and that's the one   that produces the time stamps that you there's 
an app on that phone I forget what it's called   but puts the time time stamp app it's got a 
name another name I don't think it's crisis   track but the there are photos I've seen it 
it's nice cowboy photo stamp yeah okay and so we don't have any photos of that 
day from his visit or nothing no okay   any other questions Council on this one thank you uh and that is um finishes the findings on issue 
number five mayor for ready to go on to issue   number six yes that's beginning on page 22 this 
is a claim the code enforcement department found   property and compliance while a violation remained 
Mrs schaer um indicated to me that she had filed   a complaint regarding an individual who routinely 
sat in a chair on the walkway blocking the route   to her business front entrance Door Mrs shaller 
claimed that her customers had voiced concerns   that the individual in the chair made it difficult 
for her patrons to pass by and would have to step   off the walkway into the parking lot to walk 
around the individual she stated that code   enforcement responded there is a 5 foot clear 
walkway and no evidence of a violation she claims   violation remains to this day I've gone out there 
I've seen what she's talking about there's a chair   sitting there and there's not 5 feet in front of 
that chair I don't think the sidewalk itself is   even five wide so the response Mr Palmer indicated 
that the tenant had been displaying merchandise   on the sidewalk and added that code enforcement 
department staff was able to successfully enforce   city code 110 458 F all outdoor display must 
maintain a minimum 5- foot sidewalk clearance   the tenant complied by moving all outside 
outdoor display indoors no notice violation was   issued because we got voluntary compliance in the 
field the code enforcement officer stated that he   has witnessed the chair both occupied and 
non-occupied on the sidewalk however because   this section of code only regulates shopping 
centers and retail stores using outside   display and neither the person nor the chair are 
considered merchandise the chair with or without   an occupant do not represent a violation of 110 
458 code enforcement officer stated that he had   made multiple requests of the tenant responsible 
for the chair to remove the chair from the walkway   and not return it to the walkway the tenant did 
remove it but later the tenant placed the chair   in the walkway again this pattern has continued 
it is a cat and mouse game in a follow-up meeting   with Mrs schaer the city manager inquired as 
to whether the chair and occupant could present   a violation of the Ada code which requires an 
accessible route to each business entrance by   maintaining a 42-in clear path of travel along 
the sidewalk however Mrs schaer clarified that   the only Ada accessible parking SPAC is to the 
west of both business entrance stores and the   chair placed on the east of the Eastern business 
entrance makes this portion of sidewalk outside of   an accessible route so my question if it was not 
a violation of code why did the code enforcement   officer make multiple requests to the tenant 
responsible for the chair to remove the chair   from the walkway and not return it to the walkway 
in a follow-up interview meeting with M Mr Palmer   he stated that the original request included Mrs 
schaer's statement that the individual in the   chair was harassing passers by Mr Palmer's answer 
the code enforcement officer thought he was being   nice trying to help her out departmental practice 
requires complaints regarding harassing Behavior   to be forwarded to bcso the 21122 field note 
States the chairs are not in violation since there   is 5et in front of the chairs they sit in to allow 
for unobstructed pathway in front of his store her   question is why would the code enforcement officer 
state that there is 5T of clear walkway if there   is not with the chair present in a followup 
meeting with Mr Palmer he stated that this   statement is simply in error and he will place 
an updated corrective note in the field notes   so finding number one having found no evidence of 
a violation the code enforcement officer had no   authority to request the chair Andor the chair's 
occupant be moved off the sidewalk finding number   two departmental practice requiring harassing 
Behavior to be forward to bcso was not followed okay and so how did we know that we have 
no Authority with finding number one how   do we come to that conclusion there was no 
code being violated how did we find that out   though we researched code and found no code that 
applied to the situation it wasn't Ada code it   wasn't merchandise display in the five foot clear 
walkway so when when we go out to the site what   what code were we maintaining that day when we 
approached because I think code enforcement is   upon observing or receiving a code violation so 
I guess is the was the issue to accurately apply   the code from the beginning yeah I'm I'm going to 
go out on a limb here but I'll ask my Mr Palmer to   verify that because the reference was made to the 
5- foot clearance I think in the officer's mind he   was thinking about that merchandise the sidewalks 
have to have 5 foot clearance for merchandise   display so he was possibly going out there 
thinking 5 foot clear 5 foot clear 5 foot clear   but the fact that that only applied to merchandise 
not people not chairs unless the chair happened to   be merchandise which it wasn't and I think that's 
what he was thinking when he was asking him to   move it back inside but Bri Brian you might have 
a better guess than I do no that's exactly what it   was he was he went out there with the merchandise 
code in his head and he utilized that code to tell   him you you need to be 5T off and and I had what 
code is that 110 458 F 1104 58f is what he went   out with in his head and then we learned that 
that's we believe that's not applicable yeah if   it's not merchandise it's not applicable okay 
council member Jackson yes I had looked up the   um the 458 code as for the retail 110 458 MH but I 
also took a little bit of a dive into the Florida   building code statutes under clear width and floor 
surface it is unlawful for for puding objects to   create a reduction in the minimum clear width 
of accessible routes additionally all walking   surfaces located along a means of egress are 
required to be uh slip resistance securely   attached which wouldn't make any difference with 
this however under the means of egress definition   it says in the Florida building code continuous 
and unobstructed way of egress travel from any   accessible point to a public w way so does that 
would that apply with it wouldn't because you're   reading from the accessibility portion of the 
code and the accessibility pathway ends when   you can get from a handicap parking space to each 
business door spaces beyond that where there's no   more doors to entrances are not part of the 
accessible route that that concrete doesn't   even need to be there that could just be 
dirt you don't even need concrete there   okay thank you I was wondering about that one 
110 458 shopping centers and retail stores using   outside display yes sir the word merchandising sub 
parentheses F all out F all outdoor display must   maintain a minimum 5 foot sidewalk clearance 
yes sir where's merchandising for merchandise   that's what that's about the whole section is 
about I don't see that word anywhere I do see   I'm not saying I'm just I really want to follow 
this and and think how are we thinking I'm not   shopping centers and retail stores using 
outside display the word display you're   saying is merchandise yes sir shall not exceed 
the size 10% or 2,000 the outside display area   shall be ConEd the same floor maintain minimum 
five white sidewalk clearance for pedestrians did this block the five foot do we agree with 
that that they did they did not have five foot   yeah there's not 5T because the chair is there 
so are we taking the position here that because   if it's not merchandise which it doesn't say that 
it says display and I think words matter in these   instances says display can't block 5 foot but 
other things can encroach on the five foot yeah   that that section doesn't talk to other things 
other than display so you can just cover the   sidewalks as long as you're not selling anything 
is that's how we're understanding this yeah I I'm   seeing that that if if there's no display that 
code section if there's no display that code   section doesn't apply City attorney do we have 
a definition on display or is that something is   because I can see how display I agree with the 
city would be merchandising I was looking at the   definitions and the zoning code chapter 110 I'm 
not seeing a definition for display or outdoor display maintain a minimum 5 foot sidewalk 
clearance for pedestrians it say the title of it   shopping centers and retail stores using outside 
display what was it a chair well there was more   than a chair at one point there were t-shirts 
out there as well what were the t-shirts for   uh I believe they were display of merchandise 
yeah they were on a they were just secondhand   t-shirts out umbrellas this this whole section 
of code the city council approved a few years   ago we actually did a ordinance that uh amended 
this section of code I don't have the code right   in front of me so I can't tell you exactly what 
the ordinance number was and what year it was   but it wasn't that many years ago um so I guess 
what we could do was maybe go pull that agenda   cover and maybe that would give us some additional 
details on answering the mayor's questions but uh   you mean pardon you mean as to the intent of the 
code yes exactly but yeah this was something the   council approved a few years ago so I have a 
question so if he if he's out there sitting in   his chair the way it's there's like a um flower 
box and then there's a little sidewalk and then   the parking comes right up to the sidewalk when 
his chair is there you can't get around it I've   been there and been on the side of the building 
building and walked around to the front he is blocking I mean you would have to go 
out in the street and go around right right why why are they have why do they have 
to item C 110 450 C maintain minimum 5 foot   sidewalk clearance for pedestrians why doesn't 
that and all of its logic just stand on its own   that's what I'm saying why are we saying know 
if you put a watermelon out there you know or   you put a basketball like it's I'm just making 
factious but it to me I get the display side   well you wouldn't look to this code section if 
it weren't for display but where does the five   foot come back because I think this connects 
to what council member Jackson was bringing up   is don't we have a minimum 5 foot requirement 
and saying hey you can have displays but don't   forget about that 5ot fo minimum is that I don't 
know if familiar with that I do know that the   signs uh chapter 94 says you can't have sand Bo 
sandwich boards blocking a sidewalk it does talk   about it there is the but you can have a chair 
blocking the it doesn't say you can't does say   you can't Mr Mayor yes sir um in looking at an 
aerial view of L May the next to the handicap   parking space there's striped designation for a 
walkway to get to the access aisle access aisle   all right on the very east end of that sidewalk 
in front of Ellie May there is what looks to be an   access aisle with no handicapped parking space 
next to it but doesn't that still no lead to   giving access to that sidewalk no um the access 
aisle is a requirement of a handicapped parking   space the fact that there's a area of pavement 
that's striped to look like an access aisle and   there's no accompanying handicap par parking space 
that might imply that it's meant to be an access   point but according to Ada code the route has to 
come from the parking space to the doors anything   else is just so if there were another handicapped 
parking space at the East end of that sidewalk now   we'd have a problem that would be different okay 
and there could have been a handicap parking space   there at one time but maybe when the parking lot 
was restriped it was done away with I I don't know   there's a lot of there's a lot of possibilities 
here and Ada code requires one handicap space   for the first 25 spaces and I don't think there's 
even 20 spaces out there yeah so one is the only   you only need one handicap parking space and 
you've got it out there this one is just the   5 foot I think the 5 foot sounds like my have been 
specified for these and our David was explaining I   do see 2016 under but whenever these were amended 
is saying you know protecting access we don't have   anywhere else in our code where you must maintain 
access we know that if you have a display you got   to protect that 5 foot I guess that's we're not 
that doesn't come from anywhere sourc part of part   of that remember was from beachwave um we had an 
issue there about display of merchandise outside   also in in the windows but merchandise outside 
now he's got a sidewalker he had sidewalk that   I think was like eight feet wide so merchandise 
couldn't intrud into mure five feet of it was   clear so that last three feet could be merchandise 
that's okay but in no case shall the five feet be   impeded upon I think that's the history you're 
looking for about that code change yeah yeah   I remember back in 156 we were getting a lot 
at the time outdoor display was only allowed   through a special exception yeah that's right 
and we were starting to get a lot of those and   so I guess the decision was made Let's permit 
outdoor display however you're going to have to   meet these requirements and those requirements 
are contained in in in that section that sounds   right to me yeah um also when remember too that 
public right of way public sidewalks we have a   little bit more discretion on what we can do there 
regard versus private property and I'll call them   private sidewalks um yeah if there was was just 
trash bags out there just block I mean we have   basic Property Maintenance right I mean that's 
an extreme example Health let's say there's large   potted plants out there blocking it good example 
yeah we don't your findings we don't have any   to deal with that not that I'm aware of because 
it's we specified it to display we don't have a   definition of display I mean would it be as simple 
as saying display or any other thing that blocks   right um we could certainly make a clarification 
in the code yeah I'd be interested in going back   into the ordinance the the agenda cover and the 
and the ordinance itself and looking at it but   doesn't the Ada also apply God L of a display when 
it's outside of the accessible route it doesn't   apply because that this is beyond the accessible 
route this is extra paved sidewalk area beyond that okay well thank you for talking through that 
one I think we all want to keep sidewalks clear   but since this is a not technically a public 
sidewalk it's the perimeter of the building   and it is in the Ada is being honored this 
is not a violation of ADA because what would   be a violation of ADA if it was in front 
of either door or between either door but   this is past the second door we're calling 
doors that there's Ellie May's entrance and   then there's the thrift store entrance to 
the thrift store both of those doors East   and then it's the opposite yeah the other 
direction doesn't require handicap um access okay it only has to come from the handicap 
parking space okay Council any other things   on this one think none moving on mayor yes sir 
um page 24 begins issue seven which is the fire   issue this is the one that um I added to it I 
also reviewed this was with Mrs schaer like I   did the other ones in a memo dated August 
15th M 2022 Mr dicki indicates that a fire   occurred on August 5th 22 the building is a 
two-story building with businesses on the first   floor excuse me and two residential apartments on 
the second floor the apartments are accessible via   an exterior stairway that lands at the roof 
level to gain access to the two apartments   requires walking across a portion of the roof the 
fire damaged ceiling SL roof at the rear portion   of the first floor thrift store which was in the 
storage area and the roof serving as the access   way to the two apartments on the second floor was 
now deemed an unsafe access way and the apartments   were placarded by the building official as unsafe 
however the fire did not damage the remainder   of the thrift store neither did it damage the 
remainder of the apartments only the walkway to   the apartments further the memo indicates that 
appropriate City officials had determined two   things one the stri thrift store could continue 
to operate two as long as the structure did not   pose a public safety risk there was no timetable 
placed on remediation Mrs schaer indicated that   persons had periodically accessed the second 
floor Apartments spending time within them   she reported this concerned to code enforcement 
staff on multiple occasions the code enforcement   officer indicated that he placed caution tape 
on and around the stairwell multiple times in   an attempt to prevent unauthorized entry he stated 
that when the caution tape would would be removed   he would then return to place more caution tape 
uh in recent days this is not helpful but mayor   Morrison expressed the similar sentiment to me 
further Mr Morrison indicated a great deal of   time had passed before the access was effectively 
restricted all true in a follow-up meeting with   Mrs schaer Mrs schaer referenced the same the memo 
verbiage as long as the structure did not pose a   public safety risk there was no timetable place in 
remediation so she asked the following who was the   city official charged with evaluating determining 
and determining that the structure did not pose a   public safety risk while she was making multiple 
reports that persons had periodically accessed   the second floor apartments and why was it not 
secured against access for 17 months with evidence   of people accessing the apartments in a follow-up 
meeting Mr Palmer clarified that remediation is   not the same as restricting access remediation 
means the restoring of the premises to a usable   code compliant condition restricting access 
means disallowing effectively prohibiting or   barring entry while the premises is in is not in 
a usable code compliant condition and he clarified   also if a property has sufficiently restricted 
access it can often go without remediation for   a great length of time this case went to the 
special magistrate where a ruling was made   on both remediation and restricted access did 
we issue a notice of violation related to the   damage caused by the fire yes it was issued on 
111 123 so that's 15 months later in a follow-up   meeting Mr Palmer was asked why did 15 months 
pass between the placering of the structure and   the notice violation the answer next page when a 
property suffers a fire loss the owner is usually   challenged to make arrangements toward remediation 
for example insurance claims tenant evictions   and loss of income departmental practice is to 
allow reasonable time to deal with these matters   from the time of the placering of the premises 
8522 to the time of effectively restricted access   late January 2024 17 months had elapsed why had 
it taken this long to effectively restrict access   while Mrs schaer was making complaints that people 
were accessing the apartments answer the special   magistrate could not hear the case until after 
the noov was sent this was on on 12723 this was a   15-month process the special magistrate gave until 
1222 23 to restrict access this did not H did not   happen the next meeting the Massie hearing was 
on 12324 this effectively takes up the remaining   two months it was days after the Massie hearing 
that the access was effectively restricted that   was the plywood boxing up of the stairs why 
wasn't something more effective being done to   restrict access prior to the date of notice of 
violation the effective restriction required the   installation of an attached structure of the 
2X by fors and plywood the installation of an   attached structure requires the authorization of 
the special magistrate the attachment of caution   tape does not stated a different way the city 
does not have the authority to attach a structure   without the special magistrates authorization so 
my revised question then is then why wasn't the   notice of violation Advanced sooner consistent 
with departmental practice the owner was being   afforded reasonable time to remediate note 
a notice of violation is required to include   all violations in this case the notice violation 
needed to include all remediation violations as   well as access restriction violation because all 
was wrapped up in a single notice violation and   the department practice was to afford reasonable 
time all went after 15 months that leads to this   question could a notice of violation have been 
forwarded to the special magistrate sooner with   the stipulation for a soon to come access 
restriction and a later to come remediation   yes it could have been issued as soon as the day 
of the fire my finding is there is a departmental   practice related to notice of violation time 
frames for items which are strictly public   safety violations however there is no departmental 
policy related to notice violation time frames for   Public Safety related items which also include a 
Calamity which the owner is struggling to overcome   a new policy needs to address equally these 
two important needs one Public Safety and two   reasonable customer service requirements that's 
the finding on that one mayor thank you be happy   to continue there is more we're nearing the end 
yes Council I'll just make a note we can Circle   back and sure we get through it I'm fine with 
moving on if we need I I just want to add that   um this is where Public Safety meets head-to-head 
with customer service to very different needs yes   the owner is going to need good customer service 
but we have to have Public Safety too so we have   to find a way to walk that path with him make 
sure we handle both of those get the restricted   access right now once that's restricted give them 
12 months to to remediate that's fine and that can   be done in one notice of violation moving forward 
what did the special magistrate order say this   is copy and paste from a lot of information that 
you've already seen I don't know if we want to go   through all of it I want to skip down a little 
bit say does did this case go to the special   yes original hearing 127 Massie hearing 123 what 
was the order of the special magistrate original   hearing he had till December 22nd to do these 
things and this included securing the garage door   boarding over closing up make sure people can't 
access the garage secure this utility closet and   then also it said by March 8th repair damage 
caused by the fire repair replace the garage   door new staircase at that time he was saying he 
was going to put a new staircase in which I don't   know why it's a Concrete staircase there's really 
nothing wrong with the stairs except that there's   no guard rail and they lead to an unsafe walkway 
and an unsafe roof the stairs are okay Miss city   manager this section the respondent shall by no 
later than Friday March 8th obtain any required   permits and and within the time allowed by the 
permit not to be confused with he needed to get   these repairs done by March 8th right he needed to 
apply for the permit right and that permit might   have a year or months and that didn't happen he 
didn't apply for the permit cor brand on March 9th   we knew that to for compliance of the magistrate 
is were permits pulled and March 9th the answer   is no no but there was the Massie hearing on 
January 23rd on this one he ordered the resp   respondent shall no later than the 28th 5 days 
later bolt and secure plywood to the main building   and staircase to form a box blocking front that 
was what caused the securing that actually worked   um B was about a fence to stop people from being 
able to climb fence that was complied with as well   and then it also said you had till Friday March 
8th to obtain permits to do the rest of this um   which also hasn't been done but A and B were done 
that's the temporary the temporary securing was   done the rest of it was not so what has happened 
since the special magistrate order access to the   stairs has been sufficiently restricted exposed 
fence rails have been secured against climbing   March 8th 28th deadline passed without bring 
the property into compliance concerning all   of those things except he has continued to 
secure and prevent occupancy of the upstairs   this case was presented the Magistrate on 42324 
and the property is now acre a lean of $200 for   the first day and $100 every day thereafter in a 
follow-up meeting Mrs schaer referenced a YouTube   recording from the 12723 special magistrate 
meeting wherein the code enforcement officer   stated he had seen people living in the upstairs 
apartments on 51823 this was 9 months after the   fire she inquired why was the notice of violation 
not issued until 11123 with this knowledge wasn't   this sufficient evidence that caution tape was on 
enough and the property now represented a public   safy risk additionally she referenced a collection 
of timeline entries of field notes which had been   produced by code enforcement which begins with the 
following entries and they're on 518 and it talks   about individuals living in garages Sheriff's 
Office talking to them kicking people out talks   about the detach garage talks about site visit 
and placing caution tape doesn't say anything   about upstairs access the next one says Sheriff's 
Office spoke staff a few days ago about people   living again in the detached garage they kicked 
her out again she will return they cannot arrest   her unless there's an affidavit again none of this 
is about upstairs stuff so she asked where was   the reference caution tape placed the answer it 
was on the main entry door to the apartment unit   upstairs on the stairwell and on the attached 
garage door opening why did this timeline not   include a reference to individuals going upstairs 
to access the apartments if the code enforcement   officer was aware of it happening as he stated 
he was in the 127 video and answer there was   no there was no field note enter reported in this 
document regarding the individuals going upstairs   however in a different case number 23183 it was 
created in response to this issue in the bsna   field notes for this case there is an entry dated 
92723 which states staff received a complaint that   individuals are again living in the upstairs 
unit units posted as unfit for human occupany   staff conducted a site visit and found no one 
in the units the door along with the stairs was   taped off with caution tape staff also spoke with 
cowboy who said he was not aware of anyone living   in the upstairs again the property was taped 
again and additionally this was mentioned by   the code enforcement officer during the special 
magistrate hearing on 12723 so it was mentioned   in case number 23-1 183 but it wasn't in the 
field notes from the other case mayor thank you is that the end yes sir um Council I want to give 
a public opportunity for public comment at the end   we at 9:34 I'd like to end this um as soon as 
we can not have to extend time so with that uh anything in no particular order if any council 
member has any comments our questions um I I have a question yes I need to go back to the um a question 
about the parking lot um and Mr Keenan or   a moonut has that been resolved is he gotten 
the permits he needs from the St John water I   don't think he's received did he get a permit 
Brian from St John's no from the city from the   city he got a permit from City final that's 
right kimley horn recommended he' get with   St John's um and I believe there's a re very 
recent update since I was past that in this   investigation so I didn't add it what's the 
most recent update St John's responded that   they they would not require him to have a permit 
for that so he can pave over the ground that was   already there and without a permit according to 
St John's um review of everything they said that   he does not require a permit um that it's um 
I think they said that it drains to the road   and he wouldn't need a permit for that so I 
think what we need to do is follow up with   kimle horn and see recommendations because I 
heard Peg say that it causes water to go on her property but let's make a 
followup with kimley horn on that that's all I just wanted to go back 
to that and I just think that this you   know hopefully we have learned something from 
all of this um and put Miss Peg through a lot   for the last few years um and I hope we 
get to the truth and figure out how to fix it thank you mayor protim 
council member Jackson Willis Davis now according to the uh timeline 
on the people living in the apartment of   above the sheriff's department was called out 
to there and wasn't able to remove anyone um   the notes that I see was that it wasn't 
about the upstairs it was people living   in the downstairs garages in the detach garage 
is that correct Brian the sheriff's department   was called out to the upstairs also um they got 
with the property owner if I'm not mistaken and   asked the property owner to uh do a trespassing 
so they could remove them the um um the Sheriff's   Office can't remove people is what I've been 
told unless they have a trespass um they have   a form that you fill out for BCS but that wasn't 
done I not that I know of okay not that I know of you're asking if was someone arrested 
by our um deputies yeah removed from the   upstairs and the answer I think is 
don't don't know I not that I know   of I'm not aware of anybody being removed 
from there no did the property owner sign   a trespass I'm not aware that he did 
or not no I thought it stated in here   would Council like uh us to look into 
that and respond back to on that point yes I don't I don't know if it's going to make 
a difference now but um it's been effectively   restricted access yeah yeah I'm just a little 
baffled about four month period that uh someone   was having access there that shouldn't have 
happened yeah it says on page 27 that they   responded didn't asked her to but she'll return 
and they couldn't arrest her unless the property   owner signs an affidavit so garage was that in 
the garage okay okay I see what you're saying okay and then with the situation that Mickey had 
questions on if in regards to the parking area think that this information is not really equal 
information because of the fact that we're dealing   with the two violations versus one or uh 116 
Jackson I think we should try to compare Apples   to Apples because I don't even know when the 
first one which was Cowboy filing the complaint   regarding 116 Jackson parking I have no idea 
when that one was resolved it Blends into the   next one which is about the rocks and the Swale 
that it was all still code enforcement case 22-   015 it was just it was just revised to know but 
why would we revise that if it's two separate   complaints I guess is my question city manager 
because when when a property when a property   has a notice of violation and a new set of 
new piece of information comes on we become   aware of there's a new violation the you need to 
capture all of it in one notice of violation so   you revise the first one to not only include what 
was in the first one but now add what the the new   violation and it that process continues if more 
gets added to it you revise it again so that when   you do finally take that notice of violation to 
the magistrate you've got everything you you're   playing with the full deck of violations at that 
point and not bunch of separate violations it's   all in one and it's got the latest and greatest 
and I guess that's common practice then for municipalities in the fire one was a a separate 
case uh started for that because it was a really   a separate issue and that's how code enforcement 
viewed it and it was wasn't really part of Miss   scher's tenant space it was a different 
tenant space I think that was the the   reason for the different case to open up for 
that and is this so that um when they take   um all of the violations to the magistrate 
together under one code enforcement notice   of violation is that so that when they put 
a lean on there all of those things have to   be cleared before the lean is released yep 
okay that makes a little more sense thank you okay thank you any other questions this time I got um let's do this let's go 
back to the if you still intend to to   speak let's go back to the public and um 
city clerk if you would have on multiple   's coming up uh Miss vamin actually did 
two cards do we want that for each time City okay agreed thank you m Miss 
Scher if you're ready was there   anyone else where she's coming up who 
intends to speak again okay thank you this will be the last time that I'm coming in 
front of city council about this I've done my   civic duty I've done the best I can do and I'm 
not going to spend any more of my time on this   issue I just want to go ahead and state why I have 
worked at this for so long it's because I love my   city I invested into my city and I want the city 
to get this right here's my perception and this is   why the perception it is so there was a lot of 
information LED tonight but let's go ahead and   just highlight the facts the neighbor next to 
me was 758 days before he received a notice of   violation the building remained unsecured for 
15 months where every vagrant in town could   access it not after one but after two fires 
it was not secured first time that I was told   mistruth was um when I made a complaint in 2022 
and the field note says that chairs are not in   violation Since There is five foot in front of 
them mistruth number one there's no way there's   five feet in front of that chairs let's mark that 
one off number two it's cleared of debris if you   guys want to sit here and think that that 
was cleared of debris and then miraculously   ly it was the stuff back in there brought back out 
so that I could take a picture of it well that's   going to be on you you go ahead and believe that 
he was there at one Shane came he cleared that   area put everything away and then took it all 
back out and time for me to get another picture   and then you have to realize that at 813 the next 
day Chris Robinson emails and said we will have   Shane e either remove the appliances and damage 
swing or store them in the garage if I had been   there and saw that they were cleared I'd be going 
well I don't know what happened but I'll ask them   to put them back in the garage where they were but 
that's not what stated stated we will have Shane   either remove the appliances and damage swing 
and store them in the garage I call that Li to   you may call it whatever you like then stated the 
garage door opens and closes properly written in   an email right there the garage door does not 
open and closed properly let's call that Li three no field notes for available prior to 
2022 nope field notes were available prior   to 2022 are we at four now how about this 
one violations go to the owner we courtesy   he copy the tenants nope if I may please 
have one more minute I'll be done Council   one more minute okay please okay this could 
be my favorite one I don't know there's so   many but this might be my favorite one Cowboy 
complained of the gravel in the Swale on 524 23 figure that one out when the gravel wasn't 
l until 65 of 2023 Not only was it not done he   didn't complain about it and that is line number 
five so when you ask me why I have spent so much   time to come up here and to make sure that 
the council is aware of what's happening is   because from my perception that is not truthful 
and you cannot trust a department an arm of the   law enforcement with this information and if we 
do not get this right our city is going to have   a long road to hoe and I this will be the last 
I I will not spend any more of my time working   through this I will not help this city council 
anymore if we cannot simply agree that if these   are not bold face they certainly are mistru 
and misleading and and the and the the 524   that that cowboy complained about the gravel I 
will show you the pictures I have a picture on   61 because I sent it to the contractor and 
I have a picture on 65 because he sent it   back to me saying it was done so if you want 
to believe that on 524 Cowboy complain about   gravel that was never even done that then then 
you go ahead and believe that but I don't and I won't thank you Miss fomin you know I don't want any of those seats I do 
want everybody's ears to be open if there are   people working in our city hall and getting paid 
and not doing the proper job they don't belong here I had an incident also with Cod enforcement 
I got a certified letter saying I was in violation   and I came down I spoke with the powers that be 
I spoke to the gentleman on the phone that said   he wrote it I told him i' be right down he left 
the building I spoke with the other gentlemen   that were here they assured me that we'll get 
to the bottom of this I said I'm leaving till   he comes back when he came back and when he 
was questioned did he physically see what he   wrote on that piece of paper no the only 
thing I wanted was a letter of apology I   know that letter even though they say it isn't 
official it's official I got a certified letter he's still working here and from what I 
heard tonight he's still doing the same   stuff same things that aren't true and if 
he isn't suspended I'm going to be writing   the letter to Florida today and I never say 
anything bad about this city what they have   done to ped is a disgrace that place was a hole 
in the wall you wouldn't you wouldn't walk by CU   you get fleas she wouldn't allow people to go 
in there if they were problems she turned that   place around and now the magistrates in charge 
of who's going to purchase it well you know P   has the first right of refusal in her contract 
and if that magistrate tries to pull any crap   and giving it to somebody else in the city that 
doesn't follow the rules there'll be another   letter I think that we have trouble in River City 
and I think somebody better fix it all right Todd   knows where everybody should be he shouldn't 
be babysitting he came up through ranks if your   job is AB c and d and you know it's supposed 
to be ABC and d and you don't even do a you   don't belong here we're 1.9 square miles miles 
lots of people would like to work in a little   city I feel bad I feel bad for everybody sitting 
here but I really feel B for p thank you and I   gave up my whole night of TV this amen thank 
you is there anyone else that like to speak   here seeing none equal for those at home I do see 
one hand raised from Mr Campbell Mr Campbell if   you are still with us and you intend on your 
hand raise I'm going to go ahead and unmute you should be I'm still here can you hear me okay yes sir yeah first I'd 
like I hope Miss Scher is still in the audience   please miss schaer do not give up on uh helping 
make Cape canaval a better place don't don't back   away from it please continue your vigilance second 
thing I'd like to say uh was a comment early on   this meeting that uh because the mayor was asking 
questions he was attacking staff well I want to   make it clear and and on the record that asking 
questions is fundamental to our democracy asking   what our government is doing is fundamental 
to our democracy it's not an attack it's an   obligation and it's even a higher obligation for 
members of the of the council it is their job to   ask the questions it is not an attack it's an 
obligation next thing I'd like to talk about   is is this reference to Cowboy uh I find that 
to be a little bit silly um there's apparently   a complaint that was filed a code enforcement 
complaint by Cowboy so I have to assume that the   intake for that complaint included a full name 
address and point of contact that's required   and I'd like to see that and quit referring to 
somebody as cowboy in a in a official meeting   um there was a question about what's on a 
notice of violation so I pulled up one of   my notices violation um I'm named as a respondent 
the date is clearly at the top of the letter 9:24   this one's 924 2018 and in the body of the letter 
it gives me 30 days so the reader of this letter   should assume that it's 30 days from the date 
on the letter not when I got it 30 days from   the date in the letter so there was a question 
about that that um and then i' I'd like to know   when would a tenant ever be the respondent on a 
code violation I don't understand how that would   ever be uh the next point I'd like to make is this 
working document discussion uh if the city doesn't   have a document management policy you should have 
a document manage policy that does more than just   Purge things when you want get rid of them uh I'd 
like to know is there a document managed policy   that tells how things should be marked sensitive 
classified working papers this should never have   happened if you have an effective document 
management system and then uh I'd also like   to be sure that there was pictures today I didn't 
see any the pictures I want to make sure that all   of this information gets put in the agenda pack or 
posted uh to the website I'm hoping that's going   to happen uh I believe it should so those are the 
points that I want to make and thank you thank you okay it's muted I do not see any other hands 
raised and no one indicating here we are at 9:54   p.m. back to the council my my final statement 
uh here now hearing everyone is that um I first   of all appreciate um all hands City staff the 
public certainly this Council I have a lot of   respect for each and every one of you and nobody 
I think we heard wants to be in our shoes and our   city manager I think has put forth what he his 
best to document think an analogy that maybe it's   something you don't I don't know if you still 
maintain the three story but there's I think it   was explained Peg's side under this our side and 
then the truth are we still working towards that   or I guess what is this what this is represents 
how far I can go towards the truth and we've heard   Peg say she got several untruthful statements and 
and while I I recognize that's a valid perception   this this is just a report of findings and these 
are the answers I'm getting that from the other   side of it and some of them I I recognize it's 
going to come down to well I believe this well   I believe that well sorry and that's as far as 
that can go and that's not satisfying at all   and I I know that's why she's frustrated here 
I also want to remind Peg and everyone that   there's a lot of good that is to come out of this 
effort this is only a reporting of what happened   why it happened to the extent that we could the 
recommendations that come out of this that are   going to be presented to this council at Future 
meetings are going to be showing the good that   all of this painful effort has brought to 
the city when we when we fix processes in   Code Enforcement we fix processes in our code we 
fix processes in building department because of   these things that we've learned th those lessons 
should reverberate through the future and future   generations of staff and counsel and 
hopefully never have to come back and   revisit this pain Point again so there's 
a lot of good to come and I just want to   make sure that this is the bad night this 
is as bad as it gets it gets better from here thank you I think we've got from the 
city manager's desk a piece of items five   in the original F Council voted the city manager 
part there's a reason the City attorney involved   and because that's why we have him to help and 
the goal was that when we saw what happened in   the real world and then when we went back we're 
trying to put the pieces together and I agree   there's been a lot of issues that we found along 
the way that will improve and will get better but   at some point we have to say this is what we have 
and today I think some things have been clarified   and added I think we will have the opportunity in 
the the next two weeks um I have made a request   and it maybe you replied about obtaining and 
I brought this up at the last council meeting   access to the bsna view only with the capability 
to run reports I'd like this whole Council to have   that access view only bsna Community Development 
finance and any other modules that we have this   Council should have the ability to view run their 
own reports that are that they're interested in   and I believe that again we can't alter one piece 
of data we can only see it and use it so that we   can serve our residents better I have not been 
able to get access I have not been able to get a   response about that I've emailed multiple times so 
now I'm going to ask the council for your support   that we all get and give clear Direction access 
to the BS a software and before doing that I'd   like to ask if you have a concern you don't 
have to do it tonight please email that back   and let us all see and the second thing is that 
at the meeting coming up in two weeks earlier I   think we said we're not going to have time we got 
to get back to other things it is my intention   and stated in the last meeting and with Council 
support that we in two weeks we bring the next   items to this Council because this issue is 
so much bigger than the code enforcement in   community to these properties council member 
Raymond and I clearly have had clashes but one   of the areas that we fully agreed on the first 
thing out of her mouth in a strategic planning   meeting I should have stood up and applauded 
the whole Council was that we've got issues   in Code Enforcement I just got off the 2009 
survey and today I'm excited about the changes   but I think we have got to be ready to discuss 
this at the next meeting because there is we're   at 24 hours now we've had a chance to review it 
there's life safety issues in our community that   that we only looked at two properties what happens 
when we look at other properties each one of us   have probably been and our neighbors on the wrong 
side of Code Enforcement at some point in some   manner I certainly have and it came out and it 
just it was similar to this story in a personal   story as a candidate as a citizen as an elected 
official none of of them resulted in any action   from the code enforcement and those were this 
story is we all have our own stories I hope this   gets all the attention it deserves between now and 
the meeting and with that I'm done but I do want   to thank you Todd and all of you who work towards 
this of putting this info together I hope we keep   it in front of us so my request would be that 
we get bsna access uh for view only in reporting   capabilities in all modules and we have an item 
for discussion or action if you're ready at the   next meeting at a minimum city manager there's a 
concern I just want to repeat what I understand   I I do know that staff is working on a response to 
the access issue I'm not familiar with where we on   it because I've been so focused on this but I know 
staff is working on that as to what is expected at   the next city council meeting there are some 
things that Council already clarified that by   consensus that you want additional information on 
we can have those by that council meeting are you   also asking to have my report of recommendations 
on that meeting date I want to get back to the original the the original uh 10 items no 
I don't think we've put a deadline on on   any of those will have a response to all 10 
items I'm not yes I'm not saying that this   thing should be done I'm saying some sort of um 
update and acknowledgement of progress with the   opportunity for us to truly respond to what 
you presented tonight we really haven't had   enough time to take this in tonight was a good 
night to receive it and Dave has been tasked   with preparing that response to the 10 items 
Dave you want to speak to that status there's   a draft circulating internally uh it's complete 
so the council will get a lot to chew on looking   forward to that discussion thank you but where 
we are on my recommendations is still going to   take some time for example one of the things I was 
hoping to do was get on this Council May Council   agenda a a contract for Council to approve for an 
independent thirdparty code enforcement person in   there to to review policies to review practices 
and make findings to the city manager on best   practices Anthony I've been going back and forth 
looking at this contract and and the RFP that   was for it we want to make sure we're comparing 
apples and apples and I'm not sure I'll be able   to present that for Council approval on May now 
because we're not quite sure we have everything   we need at this point but that will be one of 
the recommendations that come out of this I just   don't know if that's going to be on the May agenda 
that contract also if we do approve that contract   they will likely have additional findings 
Beyond these that so the the recommendation   and the findings are going to be continuing to 
come forward I'm going to be plugging the city   clerk into the code enforcement office also for 
stuff on public records and official records more   findings and recommendations will be coming out 
of that so the recommendations document now I'm   seeing is I can give you when I give it to you 
I'll give you everything that I see that will   address everything aware of at this time but more 
stuff is still going to come and we're going to   have to address that then too so this is going 
to be a many month thing thank you and that's   we're on the the same page on that Council uh are 
we okay with the bsna can we take consensus is   there any concerned it's I've heard that staff is 
working on that I have some sort of update where   that is can you take this over can you take get 
your hands around what it takes to add a user into   bsna because I've been asking for for months now 
and in the face of this issue well it's very hard   to get access I will work with staff including the 
City attorney to see um what concerns if any there   are and get a response to you soon by the end of 
the week access obtained or a clear reason why   we are not obtaining would be my only deadline 
all the findings and stuff but bsna is crucial   and I don't like that I haven't been acknowledged 
and given a response I don't like that well this   has I'm very patient this was very clear by the 
council this was my priority and this is what   I have been focusing on on January 24th there 
were 10 items that was the first priority this came this is a piece of those I'm 
not losing sight of the original 10 so this is a user access bsna I think we all 
got our gifts and software some wrote programs   and and architect I don't think it's difficult 
I don't know if it is or not don't think it is   and I think our it person is it's a matter of 
installing it on the council computer and and   ours and I I think if it is difficult why 
are we paying all that money to them it's   that one's important to me um because a lot 
of this just doesn't make sense so I'm working   through it it's been a while any final 
comments Council um Mr R I have comment yes may u went over so I I just um would like to say you 
know these things that Peg has brought up and and   as much money and time and effort she's put into 
her business you know we say we're a business   friendly Community we have to get these things 
right um and I think a lot of balls were dropped   things were missing um but also you know there's 
been a lot of talk lately about how Council   disrespects staff and I I don't I to me it's not 
a matter of disrespect we have to ask questions we   have to ask for um things that we need um and to 
me like you were saying about the bsna it takes a   long time to get people staff to respond and we're 
only asking so we can make informed decisions and   get the right information an example you know at 
our last meeting uh Mr Palmer was talking about   the flow chart for his department and I did not 
get that and I asked if we could get it that was   the at the last meeting I haven't gotten anything 
um and then the other thing was we had asked for   a report on open cases of code um violations 
I never got that so it's things like that that   really frustrate us as a council me um because 
then when we have people like Peg or or the people   Filmore come to us and say you know why can't we 
get information we can't get the information so   and you know I want to be a cheerleader for 
the staff in the city I love this city I love   everything about it but when it's hard for me to 
get the right answers to let other people know   the residents and also for me to make a proper 
decision on a on something anything it's it's   very frustrating so I just think that you know 
we talk about respect we're elected by the people   because they put their trust in US here so we 
need some respect too to get the right answers to   different things and the right papers and um you 
know codes or whatever but uh that's what I just   wanted to say and um I thank the staff they do a 
great job but um you know we're up here in front   of the residents and we have to have answers so so 
we depend on the St for the right information and   that's what I have to say thank you thank you 
council member Jackson um I agree with council   member Kellum and I know that in the past you 
have mentioned that um maybe we need to look at   priorities of what we're doing and put all hands 
on deck to fix these things uh some of those was   nice to have projects need to go on a back burner 
until we can f figure out how we can take care of   improving our processes internally for the things 
that matter and focus on our Basics that so that   we do them really well for all of our citizens 
before we jump into all of these other projects   we have going because we need to be there for our 
citizens make sure that we're doing a great job   they shouldn't feel all of this has been very in 
informational tonight we've gotten the information   out but if it comes down to our citizens not 
feeling like they can come to the city and get   their needs met when they pay for all of us 
in here now very little for us but uh we've   got to do something about that and these are 
people that live here this is their home and   and as we look at all of these wonderful big 
huge projects that's great but you know what   if you're not doing the small basic projects 
well and handling your customer service the   way that you should or where people feel 
good about that then we may need to put   brakes on just hold off a little bit regroup 
see what we can improve and then move forward   thank you any final comments well I'd just like 
to say that uh to your point about the bsna I   would like to have total access to be able to run 
whatever I needed uh so I could answer questions   on my own um but to to Brian Palmer I did go 
to him and ask for training on bsna for code   enforcement and he was very willing to help me 
with it and I was able to learn quite a bit but   I'm sure there's much more that I could learn 
so but I I appreciate that effort um but yes we   need to see to it and I'm sure that uh the city 
manager will get these things corrected thank you   ccil member Davis I just say I have faith in 
the city manager and the staff so I think it   will all get resolved thank you with that city 
manager attorney last word anything needed to   be stated no sir do we have I think consensus on 
those two items uh I'm happy to do a formal vote   we want that but the two items one being sna a 
response by the end of the week on bsna access   ideally it to have access by the end of the week 
tomorrow you have access it's on your computer uh   that's I'd like to I I really needed it before 
before this meeting so that I could I don't   want to keep going back and forth on stuff that 
that should be in the people's hands we are the people really important to me I I I know we spoke 
about this and you keep looking at me um I don't   I can't give access to bsna all I have is the 
ability to to reduce what users can look at or   see I can't add I can't add access to bsna 
so that's out of my hands can't add a user   I I can I don't even know if I can add a user I 
can manipulate the user's access within the the   the program itself in other words I can say yes 
you can look at this or yes you can adjust this   I can't actively give anybody access that's why I 
sent it to um the individuals that can give that   access who is that that I sent it upstairs to 
it who's it um Mike I don't Mike schaer is the   administrator access level I don't know who is 
I sent it up to it so they could just they could   figure it out we'll figure this out and John 
John you all the I think that's really going to   be good thank you Brian you do always communicate 
and get answers back and on this one it I think   I've been patient and I think the council last 
time I brought it up to emphasize this isn't   just Westby and needy over here right this is the 
whole Council wants this and Mr Mayor um normally   with things of this nature it is whether we have 
the licenses for us to be added um if if we don't   have those it may be um something we want to take 
a look at getting a consensus right now that we   want to allow City manager to move forward with 
ensuring we do have the licensing for us and if   not move forward to get that I have confirmed 
I believe Brian did help provide that we have   like 130 we essentially have unlimited users we 
own the software we didn't do their software as   a surface cloud computing we have it on the on the 
hard drives then we should be good yeah and thank   you because you offered to help me as well and 
sent me information too so I want to make sure and   that yes thank you all with that meeting adjourned