##VIDEO ID:NEswL3EbpHw## for for for [Music] okay so comments made during the public comment section of the agenda will be limited to 3 minutes got it you got it yay your mic is working yes okay Mike two mik one we're good [Music] Lisa that's good yes happy what is what's the M number where the magistrate is sitting seven seven turn all the others off yes thank you [Music] I'll just leave the thank you [Music] I you see you [Music] later you're good I put a water bottle there for you yes thank you very much [Music] this thing will really come in handy that like each year I go to a large dispute resolution conference like a thousand people and that would be nice one of the girls that does the meetings she wears it [Music] but I'm going to have to tell my hearing aid people yeah that there's something else available something else available they probably don't want to offer it they want to make that money off whatever they no these are these are good people but uh they may have just forgotten to check you I told them to check and they may not have it almost looks like a remember the Walkman almost like it looks like a yeah started uh all right [Music] let [Applause] for for for for for for [Music] [Music] test testing one 2 three TR this one more time I may have lost the channel so we're here today please speak directly into the microphone yeah I got it you got it perfect okay you got it you can bring it down I think that should be a good ide and I'm not very tall should I turn on the fans I'm okay okay do we have a new person today yes you do it's me for both we'll come up and let me int introduce you okay first let me make sure I've got your name is Officer Lindsay Long Street what's the first name Lindsay l i n mhm d s e y mhm Long Street just like it sounds okay well welcome well thank you I'm nervous always anxiety so I'm going to do my [Music] best just take your time you'll do just fine well thank you well we don't don't exactly have a big crowd yet yeah here comes someone that's the police officer good one good one how you doing morning L yes okay you know this good good are you going to be speaking today are you going to speak are you going to speak to oh yes thank you absolutely ready for Christmas trying to get there do you hear whistling noise in the background no you don't hear what you were hear before no oh before it was an echo like an echo oh yeah like hearing things twice and the beauty of this is with the earbuds I can hear both hearing aids and you have a better friend well I had to be very oh yeah those things didn't fit me these these things I have to be very careful bu excuse meason yes man oh here's your PIN [Music] back thank you to for for we do have one more that's come in we do have one more person that's come in speak todayfor why are you so sorry you yeah he's stilling it [Music] [Music] right good morning ladies and gentlemen uh today is the December session of the special magistrate for the city of Ovito today is December 5 2024 uh the first case on the agenda today is case number ce24 [Music] 000044 um the respondents are Daryl Davis and Donna E Davis the address is 1447 Twin Rivers Boulevard ovita Florida 32766 um partial number is 19 uh- 21-32 d501 d 00000000 uh 4300 [Music] uh who's going to be speaking on behalf of the city today and Mr Davis I see you're here would you step step forward to the microphone all right would you both raise your right hand do you solemnly affirm that the testimony you you give today will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do all right we'll start with you Miss Long Street and then we'll hear from you miss Mr Davis you you may sit Mr Davis till it's your turn right good morning special magistrate my name is code enforcement officer Lindsay Long Street can you hear me yes okay sorry about that good morning Mr special magistrate I'm code enforcement officer Lindsay Long Street with the city of Ido um I have a total package with 15 pages to submit into evidence may approach the bench yes you may and has that package been provided to uh Mr Davis right and this is 15 pages yes sir right this will be admitted as uh cities uh exhibit one and [Music] evidence all right M Long Street what do you have for us on July 10th 2024 I had received a notice from the building department advising there was work completed at this property with no permit I proceeded with the code enforcement process Pages 1 through 4 is going to be the property record card showing that Daryl and Donna Davis still own the property as of today page five is going to be a photo of The Shed from the building inspector page six is going to be a notice of violation that was sent with a corrective date of August 19th 2024 page seven is the certified mail receipt page eight is the signed green card and then uh I'd like to note that on August 9th the property owner had came into City Hall and spoke with staff advising the permit had been applied for at that time however we monitored the status due to the permit being rejected um so time was given for him to resubmit but to no avail thus a second notice of violation was sent um so that would be page nine with a compliance date of October 3rd page 10 is a second notice of violation page 11 is the certified Green Card page 12 is going to be our notice of hearing um the property owner was given more time after the second notice of compliance date of October 3rd to obtain a permit but to no avail thus a notice of hearing was sent out on October 16th and page 12 is the copy of that what seems to be the problem with getting a permit issued he I believe still had um documentation that needed to be submitted that was not submitted but he did apply at one time and it was rejected yes sir okay when was that uh application I believe that was August 9th somewhere around August 9th he had originally applied has he applied again uh yes sir that was going to be part of my ending of the the packet okay if you want if you don't mind waiting till then or I can expain right ahead so page 13 was the certified mail receipt for the notice of hearing page 14 was the certified um Green Card return signed and then page 15 is just a photo of a reinspection that was done on November 20th as I was in the area assessing other uh violations we stopped in to see if anything had been done with the shed at that time shed was still present no permit at that time and in closing the the property as of today has been found to be in compliance after much time meeting and conversations the city is asking for this case to be duly noted on record in the event any of the same violations occur for repeat status if warranted the city is asking for the administrative costs associated with processing this case be remitted to the city all right so the respondent is ASF today in compliance yes he has had submitted the application and the this permit the application is in the review process so what the city seeks today is a uh de designation for repeat offender yes sir St us later what admin cost are you seeking the city is uh seeking $500 for administrative costs and what does that include uh the administrative cost includes the time of getting the cases prepared the times of inspections the meeting times um the everybody's time all right I will enter an order uh reflecting that the first at all notices required by Statute and ordinance were given uh that as of today uh the respondents are in compliance but that any further violations would result in uh a repeat offender status I am going to decline the uh the request for administrative cost anything else to come before us today uh no sir not for this okay thank you [Music] Mr Davis you're here you have anything you want to say uh yes um I did meet with the building official I also went to engineering trying to get a variance uh the gentleman that I spoke to said that he found out he was on vacation so he took a quite a quite a while to actually get back uh to me and only to find out that that variance was the set the setback were actually the rights were owned by AT&T and I believe Spectrum um so I wasn't able to to do that the code officer actually came to my home and I took her to the back so that they could actually see that no additional work was actually done I actually applied for the permit just recently and they kicked it back to me and wanted me to resubmit there was two measurements on the document on the survey one was 5 fet and one was 10 ft they highlighted the 5 ft but what was actually on the actual document for where the shed is going to be located it was actually 10 ft and they kicked that back to me I actually resent that back last night so I'm actually now waiting to hear back from the building department all right thank you okay all right thank you all right the next case on the agenda is uh Case C 24- z545 respondents are Sher Winkler and Mary or Marie Adams the address is 1079 Covington Street oito Florida 32765 65 uh parcel number 23- 21-31 d503 [Music] d-30 who's going to be speaking to that today right all right what do you have for us um well first anyone else is going to be speaking to this all right would you come up to the [Music] microphone would you both raise your right hand you solemnly affirm the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do all right we'll hear first from Mr Long Street and then we'll okay then we'll hear from you thank you Miss Long Street what do you have for us good morning again I have another package I'd like to submit into evidence that has a total of 20 pages may approach the bench okay yes all right on August 27th 2024 I observed a accessory structure in the backyard of the property um that was erected with no permit um so the code enforcement process was started Pages 1 through 4 are going to be the property appraisers record showing Marie Adams and Sher wingler still own the property as of today page five and six is going to be a photo of the property and the accessory structure in the rear yard page seven slow down just a moment here MH the accessory structure is it behind the house or beside the house yes sir it's it's behind the fence in the rear yard okay was it having trouble seeing it in the photographs uh is it wood or metal it was wood if you look at picture six um the house is the left and then right behind it the stuff kind of jutting out to the side the newer looking Lumber that would be the accessory structure so it's sort of attached to the house no sir it's not attached okay all right go ahead Miss Long Street page seven is a notice of violation that was sent to the property owner with a compliance date of September 27th 2024 certified mail receipt is page eight page nine is an the return Green Card unsigned page 10 would be the photo of the reinspection on the 27th showing that the shed was still there with no permit thus page 11 is a second notice of violation that was sent with a compliance date of October 10th 2024 page 12 is the certified mail receipt page 13 is the return Green Card unsigned page 14 is the Affidavit of posting and Page 15 and 16 are photos of the notice being posted on the property page 17 is a photo of the reinspection showing that the accessory structure is still there with no permit it doesn't look like it's completed it's just a frame yes sir okay and this page 18 was a notice of hearing that was sent on October 16th uh page 19 is the certified mail receipt page 20 is the return green card signed and in closing the property as of today has been found to be in compliance after much time meeting and conversations we the city are asking for this case to be duly noted on record in the event of any same violations occur for repeat violator status if warranted the city is asking for administrative costs associated with processing this case be remitted to the city so it's near in compliance yes sir yes so you're seeking again repeat offender status yes sir and anything else just administrative costs okay all right I will enter an order finding that uh they're now in compliance I will decline to award administrative cost anything else to come for no sir okay thank you anything El to come before us today what do you is Mr Davis no Mr wingler do you want to add anything um actually I think it's pretty much resolved it really okay so yeah there was some uh some discrepancy on my knowledge on what it took to do it so we just uh and then the land bearan is so now we I just got to go back to the drawing board and get it done that way okay good thank you sir all right thank you guys have a good day thank you do I need BL you guys okay w why we miss Korea Miss Moyer Miss Long Street while we're all here uh let me explain why am not rewarding administrative cost um I have researched the devil out of this um and the problem is there is an attorney general opinion that in my that says in essence that I cannot award administrative cost for time and work spent by [Music] employees um in fact let me fact Mr Hall and I have been corresponding by email on this and I sent him a lengthy email yesterday but I'll sort of go through the gist of it with you see if I can find it [Music] here as much as I would like to it wouldn't do me any good to have somebody appeal and tell us that we're wrong uh in fact I I'll just I'll read it for you thank you Mr Hall thanks for your email but I continue to be concerned about assessing administrative costs in special magistrate hearings the reasons are as follows uh I understand administrative cost to include one money paid by the city to its in-house council person I'm sorry personnel clerks officers employees etc for work associated with prosecution of the case two money paid for supplies and in-house equipment utilized in prosecution of the case and three fees paid to the special magistrate for his or her services I don't read 162.000 as authorizing the assessment of administrative cost that section authorizes the ad imposition of administrative fines and other non-criminal penalties but notice fines and penalties this language seems clearly to equate fines with penalties there's no question that the special magistrate May impose fines and non-criminal penalties but I don't believe we can equate fines and penalties with administrative cost if the legislature had had intended to include cost in this section they could have done so the fact that the legislature addresses cost elsewhere in chapter 162 lends Credence to the idea that it intended cost to be an animal separate and apart from fines and penalties sections 16263 and 16 2072 seem to be the only references to what can be called administrative cost there are references to cost to a repair in other sections but these refer to situations where the city has undertaken remediation work on the Violator property Section 102 section 16 2.06 3 of chapter 162 uh does seem to be the only subsection that unequivocally authorizes the imposition of administrative cost this subsection deals with a situation where a repeat violator has been given notice of violation a hearing has been scheduled and the violation has been corrected by the time of the hearing in this limited circumstance because the Violator is a repeat offender and because he has put the city to the expense of an unnecessary hearing the city May schedule a hearing to determine cost and impose the payment of a reasonable enforcement fees on the Violator even in this case however the subsection requires a hearing quote to determine cost close quote this seems to Envision some sort of evidentiary hearing that means probably the city would have to tell the special magistrate what cost there are sort of to itemize it but that's a very limited circumstance section 16207 provides that quote if the local body prevails in Prosecuting a case before the enforcement board it shall be entitled to recover all cost incurred in the prosecuting the case that seems sounds CR so far sounds dispositive of the administrative cost but for the Attorney General the Attorney General's opinion if you want to write it down is ago [Music] 2014-04 and highly recommend you take a look at that AG 2014 204 h404 addresses two questions posed by the town of windir first the town wanted to know if the town could recover from a violator the cost paid to the town's special magistrate second the town wanted to know if it could recover the cost paid by the town U to the special Magistrate's assistance in assisting the magistrate in the performance of his duties the Attorney General answered no to both questions the Attorney General noted that Florida statute 162.000 71 requires that the local government shall provide clerical and administrative personnel as may be necessarily may be reasonably required by each enforcement board for the proper performance of its duties the opinion says that compensation paid to public officers or employees for services rendered in the course of the case uh are not included within the term cost unless the legislature has specifically included them and the Attorney General could find no such Authority uh the Attorney General makes a distinction between cost paid to officers and employees versus cost that would typically be taxed in a court proceeding cost expended for items such as filing fees reporter fees witness fees Etc um the former are not recoverable whereas the latter may be other words if you spend money out of pocket for engineers surveyors third persons then I think those are recoverable costs as I read the attorney general's opinion I don't think though that the time uh and Money Paid to employees and officers in Prosecuting the case are I realize that the ago is not legal Authority but it seems to be the best guide we have at this time I think an appeal court would most likely give it substantial weight therefore I offer the following guidance for the city and unless someone can show me some compelling authority to the contrary in a specific case I will decline to award administrative cost as defined in paragraph two above that's the one officers personnels the one exception would be the repeat offender situation I will award a hard or out of pocket cost paid to third persons these might include fees such as outside Engineers outside photography Fe fees outside surveyor fees witness fees and other out- of pocket outside Outsider expenses made necessary for the violation so because that mailed to him yesterday it hasn't found its way to you yet uh I do know that Miss moer told me that some other cities are awarding administrative cost all I can tell you if they are they shouldn't be uh so give you that by way of explanation so good morning Mr Marcy so that was the reason why we included in our Fe schedule the administrative fees get my ears on here [Music] okay okay so good morning Mr Marcy so that was precisely why we included in our to schedule the administrative you know code enforcement fees because um our officers Mr Moyer M Long Street they go to the phas conferences and they've learned that other cities uh were doing that and I think we thought that was a good uh a good option for the city not only to recover cost but also to um not encourage people to leave the issue to come to special magistrate right so that would be a way for them to there is an additional cost if you can resolve cuz you saw the two issues today could have been resolved earlier but people postpone and procrastinate whatever and they come here and there there are there is time and and um a cost involved in setting up the meeting so uh we thought it was a good decision but we we are not attorneys we will defer to you and Mr Hall for the uh the problem with the other cities there there they have two problems first I don't know if they're aware of the ago opinion MH and secondly even if you're going to award cost I think a special magistrate would have to have an itemization of what the cost were otherwise he or she has nothing to base an opinion on uh so I'm aware that some people are doing it but I really think you're wrong well we will defer to you and Mr H for to protect the city right we don't want to put the city in any vulnerable position for sure so um we appreciate your research and u i I'll check with Mr Hall I don't know if we have already charged so I don't know if we have to do refunds or but I'll discuss with Mr Hall about that yes well Mr Hall I I'd ask him opinion and his opinion initially was that the subsection that provided that for the the assessment of fines and non-criminal penalties uh authorized administrative cost I I simply disagree with Mr Hall on that I don't know if he had seen the Attorney General opinion or not but uh you know the worst thing I could do for the city is to get somebody to take start challenging your structure and then other people come back and wanting their administrative feas back mhm I understand so yeah U but what I'll do uh I think I have Miss Moyers well I have Miss A Costa's email I'll send a copy of this email to miss aosta and she can give it to miss Moyer Miss Long Street and you miss Korea uh for sure and I will just cuss M Mr cob Brian Cobb our city manager as well so that he's aware cuz he he oh he can make the decision you know not not to there are other ways of covering it and one way I I cover it is in the fines uh but uh I I just don't think we if we start calling administrative cost I think we're we have problems we understand okay and U thank you thank you for your research yeah well again do you have access to that attorney general opinion online just copied the it's it's readily available online yeah I I uh it's a very interesting opinion frankly I think that they're right if you read the statutes okay okay thank you thank you and welcome Mr Long Street thank you