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