going to call this workshop to order. Um, this is a workshop of the president commission regarding minimum maintenance standards and um, Derek, do you want to get us started? >> Sure. Can we do
a workshop on workshops and stuff? >> No. If you guys want to, we can do an invocation in a pledge right now. Um we have it on the agenda for the special meeting but this is first we can do it here not do the special meeting. So um Commissioner Ward if you would
give us an invocation if you would stand if you're able. >> Let's bow our heads. Dear heavenly father once again we want to thank you for our rising on today. We thank you for your grace and for your mercy. We
also want to thank you for waking us up this morning to a brand new day. We thank you for how you watched over us all night long and kept us from all harm and danger seen and unseen things. We want to give you thanks for that on today. We ask today that you continuously be with us. We thank you
for gathering on today. Help us to do those things that will be pleasing and not sight. Help us to be honest and understanding and do those things that will help everyone. Father God look upon this meeting on the day of success in Jesus name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. >> Amen
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible for all. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Take away. >> Thank you very much.
>> We need to go roll call. Sorry. >> Roll. I don't have if you could. >> Commissioner Burton >> here. >> Commissioner Moore >> here. >> Commissioner Dilla >> present. >> Vice Mayor uh William Lawrence
>> present. >> And mayor Myers is excused. Absent. City manager Derek Martin. >> I'm here. Thank you. >> Assistant city manager CRA manager Bonnie Lee >> here.
No attorney present. Finance director is not here. I'm Pamela Taylor, code enforcement officer and interim reporting clerk. >> Thank you, Pam. Um, so now Derek, take it away. >> Thank you so much,
>> Vice Mayor Lori. So today, I appreciate everyone being here on this meeting, this workshop, and you've taken time out of your personal lives for this. I appreciate it. Staff and the residents appreciate it as well. Um so today in front of you um you do not have a
briefing sheet. I kept that for myself uh as meeting notes. I think you all have gone through this a few times. Some of you may or may not have been part of previous workshops on this. This dates back to 2022 and I believe even before that. Um what you have in front of you
however are the latest and greatest of what come what had um transpired and came out of those workshops. And um Commissioner Gita, >> no. Um actually uh I looked it up. Um
the version that we have is January 25th. Is that right? >> 2023. >> Um wait a minute. >> On the minutes you gave us that was the last meeting. >> Right. I think what what is in our
agenda packet I think was after the I don't know there I think there was a transmitt memo here it is from Charles RD on January 5th 2023
there was another uh workshop after that because um we had met on September 20th 2022 October 5th 2022 we had apparently They skipped a couple of items. >> Yes. Um so there are minutes from
January 31st and as well um any changes are not in the minutes but at some point after January 25th I think the attorney Bobby Pickins asked if he could make some changes with
respect to the right of entry >> and the minutes um the first reading was initially on the agenda agenda for the April April April regular meeting. I believe it was April 13th, 2023
and um we tabled it at that meeting and there were a reference to some changes but I don't know what they were. Okay. So, so there are I would say these would be the bulk of the workshops, but they
wouldn't include um the January 31st workshop or whatever it was that the city attorney wanted to. >> So, so I had discussions about that on the history. We're going to pick up at that point with the documentation we have in front of us. There are some areas highlighted in blue that were
skipped over that we can discuss, but I think the biggest thing for this um commission at this point in time for us and staff is to focus on making sure that we understand that we have limited staffing and enforcement capacity. With that being said, we need to make sure
that we are exterior focused and making sure that those standards uh are put in to make it easier for us to enforce them from a public rightway. There are multiple areas in here and I can go through them as we go through this document. Um, of course I have notes on
each section. Um, but as we move forward into section I believe it's going to be section 4 through 7 that we need to eliminate out of here because anything that has to do with interior
um um scope needs to be taken out. the fire the the the fire marshall already has what they need for um standards in regard to um in regard to entering premises and things of that nature, but we can go
through it. What I'd like to do is if we can everybody has this in their in their packet, we can go through each section. What's highlighted in yellow was updated. Do you have that? >> I can get right. >> Okay. Um and we can just go page by
page. There's a few things in here that we need to definitely discuss, especially when it comes there's language specifically about um a code enforcement um board, which we don't have one currently, but we should leave the language in because we could have
something in for the future. But we also need to make sure that we have code code official or code enforcement official or even building official, which I believe there's some language to that later. Um, and Mr. President Mayor,
>> go ahead. This is a workshop. We don't have to be as formal. >> Well, I just don't want to be talking. >> Okay. So, I just want to point out I don't know whether Commissioner Moore or >> No, neither. >> Commissioner Roy, I know you weren't on
the commission. I don't know whether they >> um dug deeply enough to listen on video to workshops way back then. and I don't think a lot of people are listening. So, they would not have seen
this at all and um it's a it's a pretty heavy lift. I certainly don't remember all of it because we didn't really get this till yesterday, right? But I mean, the two of us were not here. >> Okay. >> Okay. And so it's, you know, and just to
keep in mind, um, although we covered all the interior, um, topics and that was a a huge bone of contention with the public, right? the the interior and that was something that attorney Bobby Pickan spoke to because
um these are international minimum maintenance standards correct for countries that don't have due process and bill of rights and requiring warrants and stuff like that right >> so he you know and it particularly did not seem to be very acceptable um to
residents and property owners in Crescent City and Commissioner Pickkins um spoke to that part. So, but we did spend guess if you take out a whole bunch of sections, we have less to do. We've probably spent a total of five
hours when we we first started with this. So, >> you know, looking through this now, it looks like we've uh scratched out the international building code, the international building. We're not using that, >> right? >> We're just using code Florida building. >> So, let's move forward. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Let's not keep going back. >> I agree. And I believe that if you all take a look at chapter 4, which is light, ventilation, occupation or occupancy limitations, um that really we should strike out. Chapter five is plumbing facilities and fixture
requirements that should also be struck out. Uh chapter six is mechanical and electrical requirements that should be struck out. Um and of course uh chapter seven um is fire safety requirements that should be struck out. And maybe
maybe we keep chapter 7, but we say that it needs to um adhere to Florida building code and fire code as well as as well as uh NFPA guidelines, right? >> And be done with it um for that section. That that takes all of that out. And
then we really go back to the beginning chapters which had already been in discussion and make sure that we tighten it up on the areas that were already um talked about or looked at. You know, if you go over to structural analysis, I'm
sorry. If you go over to 1027, historic buildings, it reads, "The provisions of the code shall not be mandatory for existing buildings or structures designated as historic buildings where such buildings or structures are judged by a code official to be safe in the public interest of health." Code
official, we should also have on there Putinham County building official and maybe add where that's in tandem with the Putnham County building official. That's recommendation from staff if that's okay. >> Yeah. >> Um >> wait wait wait. Can can we slow down a
minute here? So for historic buildings um that it's been a concern line for a while. Um because obviously and this is a good provision. Um but it just dawned on me that
there's something missing here. One of our one of our issues is uh blighted and deteriorating buildings. >> So, it's good that it says the provisions of this code shall not be mandatory for existing buildings or structures
designated as historic. Um as long as they're safe and in the public interest of health, safety, and welfare. Um and maybe we need to coordinate this with the historic preservation ordinance that I understand is has been drafted and is
coming before us. >> Um the main reason you get a deteriorating historic building is that the building envelope is not secure and I think um our current code requires a
good roof. I think that code enforcement am I correct about that that you have to have a roof in working order >> in our current code? >> Nothing like that. >> Maintaining
that people have been cited for having roofs that are not secure or that have >> have holes in them in them. I have not signed anybody for that. >> I must be dreaming then. >> I I could have sworn we had some too
that had tarps on them that had had Is it Is it from a blight standpoint, Pam, that you could put a a code enforcement lean or some other item on a property if there was if it if the property was damaged in a way that that wasn't being
fixed, it was an eyesore, such as a hole in the roof, like a tree going through the roof. We have a chapter um 10 section 10-21 that says you have to maintain your property. >> Okay. >> Consider having a hole in your roof, not
maintaining your property, then yes, you could site somebody for that. >> Okay. >> But we don't have anything >> specific for say >> okay, >> you have to maintain your roof. >> Okay. >> Okay. So that Thank you. That's helpful. Um because I
could have sworn somebody had been cited somewhere for a roof that was not um doing the job. If if we don't have any provisions that require historic buildings um to at least maintain the
envelope, then we are not going to be addressing those blight issues. So, are you saying that we we shouldn't be giving like an exemption to historic buildings? >> Well, I'm saying this is fine. >> This does I mean this pretty much
exempts them. >> I believe as we move through this though, you're going to see other provisions that would probably fall into that. I mean, if you go to section uh 110-1-1 under unsafe structures, and we're talking exterior, uh it says an unsafe structure is one that's found to be
dangerous to life, health, property, or safety of the public or occupants of the structure. If the roof is blown off, that's that's that's unsafe, >> but it's not blown off >> or damaged in a way that's causing intrusion, >> but Right. But that's that's a little
bit different. If if you have a building that has wood rot on the outside or has a roof that is, you know, not doing the job, that's basically how you lose buildings as I understand it. So, just
as we go through here, um you don't want to you don't want to overly burden historic buildings, but part of this purpose part of the purpose of all this is to not have blight and to not lose buildings through neglect.
>> Correct. And I think as we're discussing this, the the the premise of this of course is property value, how blighted uh conditions can also affect the value of surrounding properties and the quality of life. So I don't disagree
there. Um but uh I believe like I said as we move through this you're going to see things that that may be caught that might not be under another item. >> Okay. >> So where do you want to start? >> We're we basically started right there. Um, I would like to add the language of
a building official, either a Putnham County building official with uh our code enforcement official and have that language in here under 1027. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Uh, as we move through the document, um,
if you all see something you want to address, please stop me. I'm just going to tell you from my review going through the items that that I've called out or that I have. >> Okay. Um, another thing, um, we can have language if you go to 102.9 requirements not covered by code. At the very bottom,
it talks about appropriate code official. Maybe that's the language that we use um, in lie of the, you know, because we want to share the responsibility with the county, right? They do our buildings, they do the inspection, and they have higher authority. So maybe we put appropriate
code official, and that would also encompass the building official. >> What What number is that? Um the language is in 102.9 appropriate code official. What we're talking about is 1027. >> Okay. But I think if you say appropriate, I think that you should
define what is appropriate. >> Perfect. >> I I agree as well. It was just something I circled here that they use. Maybe we Yeah. >> What you think is appropriate >> and what I think is appropriate two different things. >> Yes, ma'am. So, we call out our code enforcement officer and our county
building official. >> Okay. Um, I have a suggestion. Instead of using the word appropriate, you could use the word applicable and that means >> what is specified in the law. >> Okay.
>> If you say applicable, that means there's a law somewhere >> that applies and be right back. Official has the responsibility. >> Yeah, I agree. >> I think you need to >> Yeah.
Let's see. Commission, when you were praying, I almost said, "And can we pray for rain?" >> I do pray for rain. There's actually clouds out there. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Well, Derek, in the next part of the section 103 and it says code compliance official and in it says the designation of official the present city code enforcement department and the designated building official
>> are hereby designated as the official. >> Correct. >> I saw that. Yeah. >> And I and I started that as I mean there's language we can copy. I just wasn't sure what you wanted to what you wanted to do >> because it does I mean in that section that section 102 that's highlighted in
yellow it spells out what that is. >> But um we might just want to say in the designated Pman County building official that way we are pointing in that it's the county because there are building officials. >> Yep. Yep. So that there then I think we
can >> throughout the code if we refer to the building official then it's the partner county building official. We don't have to change it. Yes, sir. All the times through the code. Yes, sir. >> Mark, >> are you okay with that, ma'am? >> Okay. So, continuing to move forward.
Um, the next notes I had, of course, was on 105.3 if we can move on unless anybody had anything else. >> 105.3 is right of way that >> right of entry. Um, we need to make sure
the entry to the property on here. We take out the word structure and and have entry to property. Um, not the buildings. Nothing that has to do with structures. We have to rewrite that. Yeah. So, I would suggest that that that
whole 105.3 needs to be rewritten and correct by Dom. >> Okay. For sure. I mean, because that was what Bobby was supposed to be rewriting, >> right? And my my guess is that there would be an updated version of this in the um proposed ordinance that was
brought up at the first reading. That's yes because Bobby asked if he could. >> You're right. >> So the bad thing and I've spent probably about honestly with all the spinning plates I've spent about an hour >> in the computer just looking for the word document. All I have is a PDF. So,
I might be able to OCR this thing, and it's going to be a pain to get it to get all the errors out because I'm going to have to take it from PDF and and create a Word document from it. And >> it's like if you go into the settings in Acrobat, then you change it to for freeflow, it'll
>> it'll do better. Yeah. >> Will you show me? Okay. All right. because the way that I do it is through Adobe and sometimes I have to go and spend hours fixing it because all these strikethroughs and everything else is going to send out weird looking >> alien language. >> Okay, very good. So, we will take that.
I will have Don look at this paragraph on 1053. We're going to rewrite that paragraph and we'll also give it a new uh a new heading, a new name instead of entry. It'll it'll be clear that we're not talking about a structure. >> Okay. I I would be I'd feel better.
>> Okay, moving on. Under 1057 under liability, um it says the code official and we've talked about what that is and and looking at that at that one chapter member of the and of course we don't have a code enforcement board of
appeals. I think we should maybe add language in there for magistrate or code enforcement board um if it's if if active at the time because we have it but we don't have it right. It's on paper but we don't right we still >> it's still in our code that we could
have a code enforcement. >> Correct. And maybe it's something we have in the future. >> Okay. So that's okay if I change that language there. >> Yeah, I believe so. >> Okay. Moving forward going to 107 means of appeal. Again, same language in here. Um when
it's talking about um the decisions in the board enforcement board is hereby designated. I just want to change that language to kind of match >> okay >> what we discussed just a minute ago. >> Same with 107.3. At the very end it says decision of board. I want to put the magistrate
andor language for the board in there. whatever applies. >> Okay, >> moving on. We've got 108.4, violation of penalties. Any person who shall violate provision of this code or fail to comply there with or or with any of the requirements
thereof, shall be prosecuted. That language probably should be changed. I'll have to get with Don, but I was going to ask um our code enforcement officer if she had any um suggestions there cuz when you're talking about
prosecuted, I'm thinking of court and we don't have I mean the best we could do is quasi >> proceedings, you know, >> quasi judicial proceedings. So, what do you think there fa? >> Okay. Thank you, ma'am. >> Let me know. I think it's appropriate to
the way it is. >> No. Well, we've been through this. You have? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I mean, I I know for people that have not really been through it, it might be coming quick, but >> yeah, through it
>> a lot of changes. If I could, I don't know that we've I don't know that this has everything it should have because we still have, it's my understanding, you're supposed to put instead of local municipality, um, your own munication.
I mean, I don't know what the language is in our current code enforcement, but um, I guess so. Have we stricken misdemeanor? Is that is that lined through? Does that mean we've taken that out? >> Yes, we've taken that out
>> and put code violation in its place. >> Right. That's determined. Um >> and you want to take local municipality out and put the city of Crescent City. >> I I have no idea, but I think local municipality throughout this thing is just generic language.
>> Okay. And I noticed what we added was and the violation shall be deemed a finable offense pursuant to chapter 2 section 2.69 of the Crescent City code ordinances. And by the way, this was written before we sent this to any code. >> Yeah, for
>> so this is this is most likely not going to be the correct section. >> I would say update for code. Yeah. >> Okay. We'll take a look at that and get that updated.
>> I put Pam on the spot since we're not formal form already. I put him on the spot. Say, "Give it to me, Pam. What you got?" >> Um, in 108.3, I think the misdemeanor or civil infraction should stay. >> Okay. Any reason why?
>> Well, they um all codes are Mr. >> and enforcable by law. >> If this body would like it for to stay, we can put it back. I don't know why it was struck out before or what the conversation was before why it was struck out. But >> wait, wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Since when a misdemeanor is a criminal offense, right? >> Misdemeanor is not civil, it's criminal, >> right? >> Is our code criminal? When we when you issue a code citation, are you writing them a criminal infraction?
>> No, I don't. But all code violations are misdemeanors and arrestable offenses. >> Excuse me. Yeah, we we've not discussed this. Since when are they arrestable defend offenses?
>> They've always been >> under what? >> State law state law. >> Okay. But the >> interesting >> we are somehow we are going in a circle here because the sheriff does not get involved in code because they only do
criminal offenses. >> Right. >> So >> let's let's refer that to to dog. to get a clear answer on that >> because yes, there's a difference between criminal and civil and I thought the discussion that we've had recently is that the county judges are not
>> issues that it would be expensive to bring someone in for that type of >> right because then we have to provide hearing defense for them and and we have to have a lawyer and all that stuff >> and they are only going to arrest state statute laws that are on the on their books that match with ours. So, let's
>> Well, you know, it says it right here in uh >> I believe the the old 110.4, right? Cuz it says section Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, 110.4
uh shall be deemed guilty. So, 110.4, if you look down at the old one here, I mean, it kind of says failure to comply. Any person who shall continue any work after having been served with a stop work order except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove
a violation or unsafe condition shall be subject to clients established by the authority having jurisdiction unsafe jail but I'm sure somebody got a little bit rowdy they might end up in jail so
>> can I give a brief history of code enforcement >> is that okay please as things. There were laws created before code enforcement and if you had a problem with your
neighbors, trash, whatever, you called the police and the police could go out and ask the people to correct the violation and if they didn't, it was an arrestable offense. The courts were overwhelmed with code
violations. So they implemented chapter 162 of the Florida statutes giving the authority to jurisdictions to hire a civil employee to enforce civil infractions,
but they stayed on the books as arrestable offenses. Normally, you don't go out and arrest somebody for trashing their yard or building a shed or whatever, but it
stayed on the books in the Florida statute that these are arrestable misdemeanor offenses. They could go to court. We have a the state has a citation process where you can write a citation
to someone like a a traffic ticket. >> Um we don't do that here, but other jurisdictions do. >> And if you go and write a citation one day and it's not corrected, you go and write a citation another day and it's not
corrected. The third time is a mandatory court hearing. So that just a brief you know scenario of code enforcement how we how we've gotten to this today. >> Okay. >> Okay. But when in our Crescent City
ordinance does it provide that these are misdemeanors? >> Yes. >> In our ordinance >> I believe so. Yes. Well, I have asked for and we have never reviewed what it is in that we currently have in
our ordinances. We have not reviewed that and it would be important for us to know what is in our ordinances so that we know what the baseline is and then what we are moving to. But we have never discussed our ordinances
being criminal offenses and the sheriff has declined to get involved with them because they are not. So this is really the first time we've discussed the fact that our ordinances now for code violations are misdemeanors.
We've never had that brought up. We don't we don't operate that way. >> Yeah. We we we don't operate that way. So, if we don't operate that way, then I don't think we need to have that in there. Um, that's obviously where it came from. But if we're not doing that,
we're not writing them as civil. We're writing them as civil infractions, not as a misdemeanor. Correct. Correct. >> Okay. So, and we're not going to as far as >> No, I understand. Okay. So, then we need to not worry about having that in the code. Um,
>> so you're you're thinking we'll never have to use something like that ever. I mean, I it doesn't sound like we're possible, especially since it would have to go through that whole process with the county judge, which they're not doing that. That's why Kaka has that whole system now that they're setting up with a magistrate and paying for all
that so that they can do that. and they're, you know, that's it's quite a expensive little process there because some if if it goes to a county judge, which they're not seeing right now, we would have to provide them we'd have to write a lawyer and if they wanted a
lawyer, we'd have to pay for their lawyer. Correct. Is that what >> Yeah. And we'd also have to we'd have to have a hearing officer. We'd have to have a magistrate. So, we would have to set all that up ourselves in order to actually prosecute these as
misdemeanors. and criminal offenses. And I so I think really the only way that we're currently going through is a civil process for fines. And I I don't really see foresee that changing anytime soon. Um I mean PLA obviously has decided to do that but
city aren't the same. No, in my opinion that they had a different and quite frankly I think there would be a great deal of concern if people thought that when they had a cracked driveway or something of that nature
>> they could get a misdemeanor, right? That would be a little scary. Now >> I think the first thing I did is take down that tree that's cracked in my driveway. Yeah. >> Um but so for another Where was I? Probably misdemeanor blah blah blah. Oh,
but um have a question for Pam. >> Yeah. >> So if Pam, if there's a stop work order that someone um defies or whatever because with there's some stop work order language in here.
>> Um here it is. It's section 110. as long as you're here. Um, what happens then? Are you able to call the sheriff to address um a violation of a stop work order? Do you issue stop order?
>> This is in 110. Stop work order says where the code official finds any work regulated by this code being performed in a manner contrary to provisions of this code or in a dangerous or unsafe manner. Like if I was putting on my roof, >> right? That would definitely be unsafe.
>> Yes, be very unsafe. Um >> per well that well my version of be very unsafe, I'm sure. Um so is that an area where the um for people who ignore stop work orders from
code officials? Um is that where law enforcement can come in? >> You could call them law enforcement >> once you have a stop work order. >> Yes. >> Okay. if they're refused. But it see it seems like okay that was already struck out
in fraction. So I think we should move on. >> Yeah. >> Shall be deemed guilty of a code violation. >> Right. >> Okay. So I think we can move on from >> 108.3 >> and 108.3. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> So that's that's a done deal. >> Okay. I'm not sure where Mr. figure out where the man went. >> He likes to swim >> and I know probably can't really figure out where he wants to go.
>> He wants to come back. >> Yep. >> Okay. His next uh is 109, excuse me, 108.4. >> Okay. Let's just see what he's saying here. And I don't mean to fill in for him, but I know he's got an emergency. He
whispered in my ear because he left some type of emergency. Glad I told you about me. >> Well, I was in a hurry. I He's not trying to um but 108.4 violation penalties. Uh any person who shall
violate a provision of this code or fail to comply there with or with any of the requirements thereof shall be prosecuted. And he's got it circled. shall be prosecuted. He wants to talk to Don about that. >> Yeah, that's right. >> Okay. So, he wants to understand that a little bit.
>> Yeah. >> More sense. >> Then the 108.5 abatement of violation. >> Uh >> we were on 10 8.4. >> Yeah, that that's all he had on that. You know,
>> I think we should prosecute it in there. >> I said it goes back. >> Well, he's not taking it out, but he wants to I think he wants to understand what that means. Yeah. >> Prosecute how >> the attorney wants to get us. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, should we put him on the wall and shoot
>> kind of you're going to >> But anyway, yeah, just so that he has a better understanding of what's expected, >> right? >> So, and then it says each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a se separate offense. So, I'm sure all this,
you know, it gets pretty complicated when you start doing this and you you know that better than anybody. It takes days and weeks and sometimes years. Um 108.5 I can't read his writing. Um >> abatement
>> abatement of violation. The imposition of the penalties hearing prescribed shall not preclude the legal officer of the jurisdiction from instituting appropriate action to restrain, correct, or bait violation or to prevent illegal occupancy of a building structure or
premises or to stop an illegal act to conduct business or utilization of the building structure or premises. >> It's building structure or premises. >> You don't know what you wrote. You said ask done. >> Okay. Those are predominant.
>> So >> it seems to me that in a way maybe we are reviewing this prematurely or at least this section because there's a lot of things he wants to train on. So >> well there's there's a lot of legal ramifications in this section.
>> Okay. cuz like as we move on the closing of vacant structures and all the all all these topics I think are kind of legal legal topics. >> Well yeah it gets kind of messy >> which are beyond that. >> Okay we're on 109.1. It's just a very
the code official uh if you work down it says let a code official finds any work regulated by this code be performed. He he would like to see code, you know, the code official as the enforcement uh officer and um building.
>> Well, I thought we we addressed that >> about what the code official is. So, I think it's it's so now where am I now? >> Okay. Oh, Commissioner Burton. >> Yes. >> Could you do me a favor? Um somehow it seems like we're reumbering these sections. >> Yes, we are. But section in my version
uh section 110 where stop work order that actually in the heading they didn't change 110 to 109. >> Yeah, >> they did on the individual sections but not up above. >> You're correct. >> Okay, that's that's a good >> because then the next one has been
reumbered to 110. So I guess somebody needs to check the reing. >> All right. Okay, that's good. Um 109. Okay, that's okay. 109.2. He thought that was okay. 109.3 was fine.
He gets down into section. Now it's the new 110.1. >> Unsafe structures and equipment. >> Um he's got nothing on there. I think he's happy with that. I don't know. Are we happy with that? uh when structure equipment is found by the code official
unsafe or when a structure is found in fifth or human occupancy or is found unlockable such structure shall be condemned pursuant to the provisions of this code. That makes perfect sense. >> Yeah. But um so I have a stupid question right now. Does um it's my understanding
that the Putham County Building Department condemns buildings? >> Yes. >> Do you So do you coordinate with them? >> Yes. So if you believe it's unsafe, you refer it to >> the building official >> to the building official.
>> Send someone out and and issue a condemn notice. >> Right. I'm familiar with >> this. So allow for that because >> Right. We we are >> we're saying that. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. >> That's all. >> Um
110 1.1 unsafe structures. A unsafe structure is one that is found to be dangerous to the life, health, property or safety of the public or the occupants the structure by not providing excuse me minimum safeguards to protect
or warn occupants in the event of fire or because such structure contains unsafe equipment or is so damaged, decayed, dilapidated, structurally unsafe or of such faulty construction or unstable foundation that partial or
complete collapses as possible. Now, this is uh again, we're looking at the exterior, >> right? >> Now, as far as I know, some of these houses, the exterior look at that flat. >> Um sometimes the exterior looks good.
Did you get in the inside of it? Um it could be pretty bad. >> Yeah. >> Um does did this say out? No, that's the next one. >> That's the next one. That's what I was going to bring up the >> 110.1.2.
>> Yes. >> It's talking about the boiler, heating equipment, elevator, moving stairway, electrical wiring or device. All of these things are interior. Um, and where I agree that they are bad. I don't know how we're going to regulate. >> We can't regulate
that out. >> I think this whole that section that 110.1.2 uh should come out. Write that down on here. >> Okay. >> I agree.
>> Usually a dilapidated house a lot of times doesn't even have any of those things. >> Yeah. >> So anyway, >> and we're not, you know, we're not regulating the inside of the house. So >> Okay. Structure unfit for human
occupancy. the structure is unfit for human occupancy. Remember the code official finds that such structure is unsafe, unlawful or because of the degree to which the structure is in disrepair or lacks maintenance, is insanitary or unsanitary, vermin or
ratinfested, contains filth and contamination, or lacks ventilation, illumination, sanitary or heating facilities, or other essential equipment required by this code, or because the location of the structure can con constitutes a hazard to the occupants of
the structure or to the public. So that makes sense, too. I'm going let me go ahead and take this. Thank you. >> That's what you just read. It was the very top this very top. Okay. And and I I apologize to this group. Um I have a bit of emergency and I'm going to ask
when I do get another phone call from the mayor if we could go to a recess for 10 minutes. I've got something that I need to take care of. >> Um Derek, what we did discuss was uh section 110.1.2. two
um which is unsafe equipment talks about boiler heating equipment elevator moving stairway. >> Yes, >> that whole section I think we removed that section consensus messing up. >> Yeah, because most of that is is interior >> is interior. Correct. >> Correct.
>> So I think that whole section came up >> unsafe structures as well as well. We need to be clear that that we're talking about exterior right in there as well just to have some language in there. 1101-1, >> right? Yeah. >> Which I think it is it's big enough that
sounds like it covers it, >> right? >> Um I personally didn't have notes on the rest of that going into chapter 2. If there's anything specific that you all want to to discuss on these pages in
chapter one, we can. But I didn't have any updates on those items. when you left, we were talking about violations. Um, section 108 or actually most of this uh section 107 and no 108 which is violations we think that you need to
consult with >> with our attorney. >> Yeah. So I put a note on here in red. Yeah. >> Yeah. To talk with D. >> So we just we kind of skipped over that. And the next one is section 110 stop order. That actually needs to be renumbered as one nine. >> Okay.
>> That was missed. I know. title there, >> which is funny cuz it goes from 109 to one. I know it does 110. Okay. >> Yeah. Used to be 110, but we'll get that. >> That's what happens when you take sections out. >> I'm really I'm really praying. I'm hopeful that I can find the original
document. That'll make life so much easier for staff. >> I was I was looking my predecessor, >> which I'm not sure. We we had that discussion yesterday. I mean really >> we're not sure why that was put in blue. >> Um there when you say original document
do you mean the last version or the very first version? >> No. When I say original document and I apologize >> the most current document with highlights. That's a word version >> and not a PDF >> and not a PDF. >> Oh, okay. >> Yes. Because that just makes work a lot
easier. >> So I'm going to be searching for that. I might even call Mr. thread to see if I can see if you can point me in the direction. >> I went in his file. I have access. I don't see it anywhere. Um and I might just be overlooking and you know another
folder >> does clerk check >> and I'll ask but the clerk provided just the PDF. >> Okay. >> Because I would think that there's going to be there's a word document somewhere. >> There has to be. >> Absolutely. >> Which make your life a lot easier.
>> If not, we can make it work. >> Yeah. I I'll figure it out. We have we have magical ways we can fix it. Just takes a little bit more time. >> Yeah, just a little bit more time. So, yeah. So, one 110.13 through the end of the chapter. I don't have anything to add for you all as
notes per se. Um things that were already had been uh reviewed. Um so, we can move to section um chapter 2 under definitions. Um, and actually I'm sorry. We can go past chapter 2 and go directly
to chapter three. That is going to be that beautiful blue color highlight. That is impossible to read. And I will do my best to read this. Um, and I apologize if I paused. So 301-1
this is uh general. So general requirements under chapter 3 scope. The provisions of this chapter shall govern minimum conditions and the responsibilities of persons for >> maintenance of >> maintenance of structures, equipment,
and exterior property, >> which is the important part. >> That's the important part. Yes, >> that's really what we're after. >> This is the the next part says,
and I can't tell >> responsibility. Yeah. Responsibility. It says the >> owner of the premise shall maintain >> the structure and >> exterior >> exterior property. So you can probably
see it better visually because I've got it up so I can go. >> Perfect. The owner of the apprentice shall maintain structure and exterior property in compliance with these requirements except as otherwise provided for this code. A person shall
not occupy as owner occupant or permit another person to occupy premises that are not in a sanitary and safe condition and that do not comply with requirements of this chapter. Occupants of a dwelling unit, rooming unit or
housekeeping unit are responsible for keeping it in a clean, sanitary and safe condition that part of the dwelling unit, rooming unit, housekeeping unit or premise they occupy and control.
301.3 vacant structures and land. Vacant structures and premises thereof are or vacant land shall be maintained in a clean, safe, secure and sanitary condition as provided herein so that so
as not to cause a blighting problem or adversely affect the public's the public health or safety. Moving on under section 302, exterior property areas 302.1 sanitation. Exterior property and premises shall be
maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. The occupant shall keep that part of the exterior property that such occupies or controls in a clean and sanitary condition. To me, that's kind of redundant of what was already provided
before that. Thank you very much. I have to match with him next time I talk to him and ask him what that was all about. >> Well, the blue the blue the blue section you said in this memo that that was not >> it was it was skipped over. Right.
Right. I'm I'm messing the color. >> It's a very dark Yeah. And if it's scanned, which is what happened and then scanned it, which is ridiculous. >> Bad practice. That's all right. We'll fix it. It's probably redacting it.
>> Is there any changes or do you want to reduce some of the redundancies there? >> I don't think we need to rewrite the whole thing. >> No, I think I mean it is redundant. >> Just leave a lot of >> code is redundant. It is. So we don't need to. >> All right. So then moving forward
I'm going to section 305. I believe the entire section of 305 which is interior structure needs to be taken out and removed from this. >> This 304 is exterior. >> Correct. to >> 304 or 305 all of it. Every section has
to do with interior >> interior structure. Yeah. >> So I'm I'm asking to just remove that. >> I agree. >> Perfect. >> Everyone else in that in the agreement. >> Yes. Great. >> Then we get to 307 talking about
handrails and guardrails. These can be exterior. I think we just need to take out. It says 307.1 general every exterior and then it says and interior. I think we just take out interior. >> Yes. >> Is that okay? >> I agree. >> Should we move this to a different
section or combine it? Maybe adding stairs to this because there are provisions for stairs in another section. Should we combine it or leave it? >> Okay. My concern here is this. Um, we are already apparently working with an
superseded version of the international amendment maintenance standards because there's a committee that updates it. And it's my understanding from looking on the web that there's already a new 2000 and
>> there's a 24 version, right? Possibly. Um, so I guess I mean this the whole idea is that we were going to use the international minimum maintenance standards and I'm assuming that they update it that they use the
same structure, >> right? >> That whatever they do that's new you if you keep their structure then you can >> easier to >> you can find where it goes. You can you can correlate the changes to
>> um your version. Correct. >> Yeah. So we don't want to be moving it all around. >> If we Yeah. If we do that too much. >> So then we leave it in place and just take out anything that has to do with interior. >> Right. Handrail guard rail part. Take that interior part out. Okay. >> Because it's also talking about
landings, balconies, porch, deck or ramp which are all exterior. >> Exterior. Okay, let's leave it and leave it right where it is because we don't want to be >> So then that takes us to chapter 4. I've got nothing else in front of you notes. Yes, ma'am. >> I do. >> Okay. I think that if you go back to uh
all the way to the first page of chapter 3 302 weeds um I think that there is a later version of this um that speaks to our semi-ural
um situation in Crescent City. Um I'm just do you mind can I check go back and check please to see the later versions because I think that we made some changes to >> um the the landscaping part and find what
we did. So I remember us having a discussion and picking swing and >> and you know as we know this is still a workshop. >> Yeah. So sure let's make a note of that and we can move on and >> Yeah. Is there something I need to research or are you going to look into? Okay. Just let me know what you find and
we'll bring it to the next one. >> Okay. >> It's quite possible that we're going to find the actual word file that's going to be changed. >> I would love to find the word file. >> Yeah. So, just make a note there for >> Okay. >> Commissioner to bring see if she can find the um So, you're on now chapter 4. That's what you
>> Yes. So, chapter 4 through chapter 7 I'm asking to remove it is all >> exterior provision or interior provisions. >> Kitchen, bathrooms, cooking facility. Yeah. All those. >> Yes. All of it. There's a lot of blue so we don't have to read that. >> So just say again what we're taking out.
Four through seven. >> Four, five, and six >> and seven because seven uh it has to do with fire regulation. And I think what we should >> what we should do is even in the reference standards for that they talk about the National Fire Protection
Association. I think what we should do is just put change the title. Let me get to it real quick. I had notes on here and just have chapter 7 and under general we can you know it says right here the provisions of this chapter shall govern the minimum
conditions and standard for fire safety related to structures ex and exterior premises including fire safety facilities and equipment to be provided and I think we should just have language in there that says that compliance must be with Florida building code Florida fire code and FTA guidelines that's it
responsibility as well because the responsibility says it's the ers the owner of the premise shop the line and maintain such fire safety facilities. I think those so that responsibility to add the 7.01.2 and then dump the rest. >> Yep.
>> That's what I I that makes sense, >> right? >> Yeah. >> You like that? >> We don't. >> Yeah. and and that would make it less confusing and probably less conflicts >> and also I know uh NFPA changes quite often
>> and that's just a guideline it gets updated quite a bit >> correct >> and Florida really good at Florida fire code >> and so that takes us to the very end um we wouldn't change the
reference standards it goes to appendex A under boarding standard And that's the last bit of it. I didn't have any notes in there either. International was taken out to put Florida for Florida building code instead of Yeah, international building code. So, what is this? What is appendix
A here? Sorry, >> I'm sorry. What is Appendix A about amount here? >> Appendix A is boarding standard. So, windows and doors shall be boarded in approved manner to prevent entry by unauthorized persons and shall be painted to correspond to the color of the existing structure. That's an
exterior thing. There's a big discussion about that in the minutes when I looked at between Mr. Mr. Burton also. Okay. >> Talking about boarding and then you know coloring >> the boarding sheets can't just be plywood put up on windows. >> Why is why is this an appendix?
>> I I don't know why it's it's a I'm not sure. Now let me ask the question though if that's the case. We have a hurricane coming. >> Is that are we >> that's temporary? >> It is temporary. >> Very important. It's not something that >> Okay. So this is this is a little different >> longterm per in the hurricanes. A you're
lucky to get plywood. B you're lucky to get all your plywood out and see I don't think we usually go around there enforcing all too busy trying >> to stay alive. >> So yeah it doesn't really matter that
that's payment. Honestly, those are those are the only notes that I had going through this and the main provisions. I just wanted to make sure that that any of the public that's listening uh understands that from a staff standpoint, of course, we're looking at
this for value of property, making sure that we have u control on the blight and that we have uniformity. So, we're of course >> and also about health and safety. >> And health and safety and quality of life. Yes. >> Right. And and I I I sent you a text
message I believe earlier about the city of Weston. They had a they they um put into place minimum maintenance standards. And one of the things they did was there was a whole web page that they set up that was
explain to people what it was all about. Um and I think that that was something that we did not do last time. Um, and we kind of lost the public relations battle on that because of some of our, you know, our reactivity instead of proactivity. And so I would really like
to see that done with some, you know, FAQs. What does this mean? Or how is this going to change uh, you know, are you going to come into my house and that kind of, you know, those those questions so we can write out just answer those um, and hopefully not have what happened last time.
>> Right. Right. Um, right. Would you not agree with that mist? >> Um, yes. But there's there's another area to consider that we did have some discussion on. Um, even when you're just
dealing with the exterior. Um, and I know that we are I really think we need to coordinate this with hopefully historic preservation ordinance. Um DJ, but some of these things like for example um
where is it? 304.2 protective treatment, peeling, flaking, and chip paint shall be eliminated. Surfaces repainted. Um there some of these items while they are important have a really significant cost
and we we talked about that when the last um when we considered the last ordinance um I looked at the minutes and it reminded me the mayor mentioned the shift program just people >> unfortunately the need is so great the
shift program does not even >> begin to address what people need. That everybody who would have a financial need is not even remotely be covered by SHIP. And some people here no longer
have um insurance. And we discussed that you can't qualify for SHIP if you don't have property insurance. So some uh we discussed grandfathering or um you know stepping uh
>> I guess >> right phasing things in. We discussed maybe initially applying it to commercial property. Um we discussed the problem with applying it to homestead property. Um because some of these
things to to fully to take a wood building and and particularly a historic building and I can think of a few um to really remedy the peeling flaking paint. I would love to see that done, but I'm pretty sure there are people who
would not be able to do that within a year and I would hate to see the value of someone's building eaten away by recurring fines. And you brought up the the point of cost. It's very expensive, too. U depending on how old the paint is that needs to be remediated because it
could have lead in it. That's a whole another of wax. >> I'm just saying somehow um I think um Commissioner Gloria is is very correct that explanations need to be made and particularly the fact that we're not
looking at the interior. Um, but to really make sure people understand that there's cost to this and for us to understand, you know, how can we make sure that we're properly addressing light and the deteriorating buildings without putting
someone out of their building or I mean you can we've seen it in the fines that acrew you can eat up the value of a structure. >> Yes. >> With fines. So, >> you know, we als that's a problem. >> We did have a discussion with
representative that came in. We had a meeting on Monday about our our CRA program. We had a good amount of people here. I was very happy with the turnout. Was about the same as the first time. So, we doubled. Um, and we had some larger companies, if you will, that were in that are looking at some of the
properties. But I say that to say that we had a representative from St. John's County that that is a shift representative. I'm going to let you discuss that a little bit. >> His name is Bill Lazar. He's with the St. John's Housing Partnership, and I don't know if many of y'all have ever heard of him, but they do some wonderful
things for St. John's County, some nonprofits, and they have uh uh like helping people, organizing programs to help people paint their homes and with um local realtors and businesses. and um
he's got some great ideas that I'm to help the community around here with. >> The biggest takeaway that we took appropriate from that meeting is that there's and and you know, we'll we'll get into this as we set our calendars and get into our budget, but the the amazing thing was that there's an
opportunity to match dollars to the city on our housing portion of our CRA. So, if we can get the community to have buy in and come in, that's the biggest part. We can't force this on people, but if we can get the community the information
they need and we can put the right amount of dollars in our budget, there's an opportunity that they can match those dollars for the housing redevelopment portion of our CRA. Uh, and maybe one year we we do have a huge workshop. We really try to get people in and we say,
"Look, this year, commercial projects, we're not going to touch that too much. We're going to do some things on the streets and and and have that in our budget, but housing, we have an opportunity to do that." That would >> in the housing department and ship in St. John's and I know how the money can go. I mean, I mean, we had a $70,000
budget and they would we could easily quickly. So, we're definitely going to look at those options. We know we have a need every time. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I like the I like that you guys are trying and thinking new things. I just would like to say going forward, I
think we need to have really great proactivity here and let's lay this all out before the questions start flying around. In fact, I got an email last night from a citizen concerned that this is, you know, 1984 and we're going to, you know, just take over. Yeah. And I
think they >> I think anybody that reads or watches any of this later can see that we're um very much about making uniformity on the exterior. So our on the visual aspect of what we have is uniform. It's clean.
It's safe. The interior we are not touching. We removed all of that. We can be very clear that we're not dealing with the interior of any of the structures or any of the properties. And so my my suggestion is that once we get a final copy of this done, before we
adopt it, we need to put it on a web page with some FAQs with information. This is what it is. This is not what it's not. This is why we're doing this. And then here's the the stuff. And we need to do that like a month before we adopt it. So that there's plenty of
time. We're not sneaking it through. We're not running it ramming it down anyone's throats. I mean, obviously talking about this is 2022. It's not >> correct. We're in a hurry, but >> okay. Um, >> I can definitely put an FAQ together and I think we can do a page within our site and we can get that out to the public
and we can put links on our Facebook and everywhere else next hour. All of it. We'll get it out there. >> We don't we don't want to appear like we're trying to hide anything. We're not passing anything in the dark. We are sharing all this information and it's for we hope it's for the good of the city and for the residents of the city.
We're not trying to, you know, impose any harsh guidelines on anyone. And to Commissioner Devito's points, um I believe what you know, once we get the word out there, once we have these conversations and once we have it in place, we can see where those opportunity where those problems come up
and we can really see what you know, may how do we know that maybe people are more willing to paint their house and fix their their chip paint than we realize. >> Sure. uh once we when we have some problems coming up then maybe we can address those and see those and deal
with those people instead of just not making decisions because we're afraid of what's going to happen. Right. >> I think we need to we're doing this for a reason. We've always discussed this. >> But Commissioner Roy, I'm just telling you based on what we've paid for our house and what I see around town,
>> if the danger in enacting a code is >> then that's your code. you have to apply it. And what I see around town and what we've seen in our applications for CRA grants, >> um, it's tens of thousands of dollars.
And I think we can safely assume that there are significant number of people in town in residences who do not have $35,000 lying around to address those COVID issues all at one
time. And my concern is we need to see what the problems are before we pass it because after we pass it, we don't unless we have some kind of phasing program or whatever, we don't really have the ability to wave, you
know, >> I think we got to start thinking about going through the low hanging fruit. >> The low hanging fruit is where we should start. >> AB: Absolutely. But once I mean there's that's what we think. But at a at a
future date, >> we have to stop thinking that no one has any money. Okay. People have money, Lisa. People have money. >> It's just how you spend your money. >> And so I I just think we should go, you know, I maybe I shouldn't think about
it. We ought to just go for the lowhanging fruit first. Okay? Just do that. >> Okay? and then go from there and see what we got. You know, a lot of times if people just pick up the garbage in their lawns, the the garbage in the streets, wherever, wherever that garbage is, it
makes them feel better about their house. The next thing you know, they fix the fence and then next thing you know, okay, and it just kind of continues that way. They've got to get feeling good about their surrounding areas. I mean, we just we just got done over here on
Eucalyptus Street, and thank God they I guess they sold their house or they're at least moving, but we I started calling this, you know, somebody said, "Well, where do I take this to the dump?" I said, "Just bring it over to Eucalyptus Street. There's the dump right there." Now, this was just a joke,
but it was a dump. >> Okay. And I can't believe the amount of stuff they've taken out over the last few weeks, but these things should not be allowed to happen. You're talking about the hoarding and >> well, you know, the cars the cars that
are parked on on our lane, our property. Okay. That 10 foot. Okay. Um right away. >> Yeah. Right away. They should not be parked there. Okay. Period. They just should not be parked there. They should be parked in their driveway, but their driveway is too full of stuff. Got it.
>> Okay. So, they can't get their driveway. >> That is definitely a low hanging fruit. just I think we need to be very careful about putting someone out of house and home and I hope we will do that. >> I hope that people will come and speak
to that and let us know um and how this will affect them and certainly one thing that was intimidating about the prior version of the ordinance was the huge bulk of the of the >> language the pages were the interior sections that are gone. So if they are
gone, I think that it will be easier for people to read and understand. >> And I like vice vice mayor um >> I always want I always want Okay. I like his idea to get this thing out and and take a few months to
introduce people to some of the problems that we have so maybe they can go out and take a look at what we're trying to talk about and see what we're trying to do, you know. And I I really think sometimes people uh feel like we're trying to rush things and I don't I just don't like that because we're not. I mean,
obviously we're done. This is 2022. Um we took a little break for three years, but we're back. Um and I I just we're not trying to hide anything. We need input. If people have some, you know, recommendations, that's what workshops are for. That's what public meetings are for. That's the reason we want to put it
out there and let everybody know what's going on way before it comes up for a vote. So, >> right. And could I just follow up on that question, Lori? Um, >> you make a good point. We do need input and input. Uh, hopefully that's specific
>> and even if people cannot come to a workshop, >> they can email. >> Yes. >> So, that would be very helpful. >> City manager gets emails. We all get emails. We all have email addresses. So,
please let us know. I'm taking to the >> I'll make these changes and I'll route them to everybody as well. I'm gonna try to find that digital >> word file. If I don't, I'll OCR this and >> spend a little bit of time making it right. >> I'll show you a better way to do it.
>> Good. And then um at the same time once we do that I'll start creating some FAQs on this and I would like to get with you to make sure that the structure of it is proper and any questions if you all have anything specific from your review of this that you want to get out to the
public clarity wise I'd be glad to take any emails and add them to the F FAQs. >> Okay. >> Yeah. FAQs are funny. You just kind of ask the people in the office like what is this you know? Yeah. Yeah. What do you think people are going to ask? We can probably help on that too once it
comes because we know what was said last time. Um so and especially Commissioner Bergman, the mayor and and and Commissioner Devito knows what was said. >> You know, I I I know that we've got some areas that needs more attention than
others, of course. Um but the uniformity is important and the safety and and health and the aesthetics of our city is super important so we can attract more people and families coming in here. One question I had for Pam in reading this, how would it affect the home that's been
sitting in a state of construction since I've been here since on Main Street since you probably moved here? It's been years. How will this allow the city to um move that process forward?
>> He has an active building permit on that property. >> Okay. until he has an expired permit. There's not anything that I can do >> if the structure is unsafe. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I don't know.
>> I have a question about this. >> So, I asked about this several months ago. >> Um about it several years ago. >> I asked about it a year ago when I got here. >> Right. So, and the answer is always he has an active building permit. So, that
permit came from the county. Is that right? >> Okay. But wait a minute. Wait a minute. When you get a building permit, are you allowed to wait until the very last day before you even drive one nail? >> Good.
>> Okay. And so there's nothing that we as a city can do about that. Is that is that a county under a county ordinance or rule? How what is >> what is the the length of a building permit? Is it two years from issuance
>> or is it a year? >> I'm sorry. >> How how long is a building permit is it good for? >> I believe it's yearly. >> 180 days. Six months. >> I don't think so. 6 months. >> Okay. So, what So, is he entitled to keep reviewing >> his building department? Yes. Yes.
>> Okay. Are we I guess what I would like to figure out here is is there anything that we can do as a city? Do we need to to request the county to do something whether it's administrative like I'm I'm at that point now.
>> Okay. What I'm saying is this is a situation to me that should not be allowed to go on and I think we need to ask Dawn and ask the county building department why is this continuing and is
there anything that we can do either to ask the building department >> right >> in this instance >> or to ask the county to change or is there anything we can change because I think I can safely say that we don't want to see a situation like this. So,
you repeat itself and we we want to do something about that. >> I agree. And the issues I have is number one, I I don't see a permit box up there. >> It doesn't look like a construction site and it's very unsafe. >> Um, you have kids that can go in there.
It's not it's not secure at all. It's wide open. And so, I I'm going to make the phone calls. It's something I definitely want to to deal with. I just I would like to see the opportunity for this. Number one, this won't be brought under control and secondly to see what
we can do to eliminate the possibility that this can occur again because >> it's obviously it's very unsightly >> and >> it's the biggest blight on that road. I mean, yes, it's >> in my opinion, >> it's very Pam, did you have something to
to add? Yes, ma'am. >> Explain to us about building permits. We had a code enforcement lean on the property and the commission rescended the the lean. >> I thought that was the property next to it. >> No, >> it was that building. >> Yes.
>> And the >> that was so he could apply for CA C funds to help restore his building. >> And we haven't received one application from him. >> I don't believe so. >> Well, we haven't I know so. Okay. We
haven't received anything from him at all. Um, I'm going to contact the county. That's something we're discussing and working on. I know it's it's an issue. I mean, the build building permits and building, you know, that's under our perview as far as home rule, but we
contract with the county. They >> they write permits, they collect fees, they keep the fees. We don't have any of that, but I mean, we should still be able to, I would think, dictate rules. I'm gonna find I'm going to find out from Don and I'll be in touch with Leo at the county to find out what we can and can't do
>> and whether Yeah. whether we have an air local agreement that spells that out or what would be I would just like to know how that actually operates. >> It's it's something it's different if you start seeing interior walls being put up that property. >> There's nothing that's happened at all.
That that's why I say he can he >> nobody's been through these. Usually you get a building permit renewed if you make substantial progress is my understanding when I've usually seen building permits. You don't just automatically get renewed when you ask for one. You have to be making
substantial progress or have a reason or some sort of explanation or plan for something. Um and to me I that that place has not changed as long as I can remember. Um, >> then I've lived here for 14 years in this in that house down the street. So,
um, >> I checked on the permit on that property, you know, routinely to see if it expires, >> right? >> And it hasn't in a long time. Um, the building department suspended expiring permits during CO,
>> right? >> And I don't believe they've reinstated that. I'm not sure >> because I don't u have a whole lot to do with that. because I mean, you know, most people when they get a permit, >> they do the work immediately and it's done and it gets signed off and you're done. I mean, this dragging it out and
waiting, you know, just and so let's just let Derek finds out from it seems >> it's it's on my chopping block. It's one of the things that I've I have on my written list of things to do. So, >> I'm glad that this kind of brought it up because it has to do with exterior
>> and and the look of the neighborhood. Thank you very much. And I recall when we waved that those fees, law enforcement lean. I did not know that that was for that that building. >> I thought it was for the property next door. I did too for the I was under that impression that impression I think. Do
you recall? >> I thought it was just in the last year, right? More was here, right? I don't remember. >> I felt like it was the room with like the property next to it, not that building cuz I was I was surprised that we would release
that. >> I I can't imagine. >> But I mean I remember the guy came he was here, wasn't he? >> Yeah. >> He came in person. The uh the owner. >> Yes, he did. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. Um I just that's >> I think it was his last name.
>> Okay. >> All right. So um so moving on um that's me but um the other item on our agenda scrolling. It's the non-resident property owner
registration. >> Correct. >> In your packet I believe you have compliance sessions >> for Broward County. >> Yes. >> And the permits. I'm not sure how we would want to structure this also or speak to it.
>> Okay, I can speak to it and um I will be brief and I have um a memo to hand out to everyone. Unfortunately, my stapler is not working. So, it's two pages and they're not stapled. This is for the file for the >> Thank you.
>> And also, um I wanted I made one for city attorney um who's not here. So, I'll Oh, thank you so much. I'll put that aside. Um, well, hold on, Mr. City Manager. I will have a copy for you whether May, who should I give the city
attorney's copy to or just >> I'll scan mine in the email. >> Okay, I'll put um city manager. Not want to make sure everybody gets one. Okay, so here's city manager, city attorney. >> Here is and commissioner. I apologize
that did not um send us an electronic form. >> Give me one that's on paper. >> Um okay, here's one for Commissioner Lori and Wait, Pam, do you want one?
>> Oh, thank you so much. Okay, >> I need I need my steps, but I'll let you do the honors. We need two more and then I'll have one for the mayor. I I guess just put hers at her desk view if you would. Thank you so much.
>> Um so basically um Commissioner Lloyd used um the word that really describes all this which is being proactive. And I brought this up because what um registration of
properties is is really um a supplemental uh way to address code issues that are very common with abandoned, vacant, foreclosed properties and rental properties that are not properly maintained. Um and typically the worst
problem that municipalities and counties have um with rental properties are non non-resident like where the the owner doesn't live on the premises or doesn't live in the same town. Um and I can think of one on my street and I apologize um there's one
paragraph where there's a range. It says cost it should be 5,000 to 10,000. I tried to handw write that in. So, what I put in your packet is not any one ordinance that I am suggesting that we adopt because these um counties and
cities are not Crescent City, but they are examples of how these ordinances work. And they really came about, as far as I understand it, um to in 2008 with the mortgage foreclosure crisis.
>> Yes. Um I was living in Tampa at the time and um cities right cities, counties, the whole state, you know, all of a sudden um houses and and uh buildings were foreclosed and we had a lot of code issues. And then also since
2008, both because of our population growth and the cost of it, we have more rentals than we used to and investors are adopting those rentals. So
basically, um the ordinances are just to look at. Um, I was torn between focusing on minimum maintenance standards and um, going through the ordinances to pull out everything that I like. Um, but
essentially if a property is foreclosed on, it's vacant. I can think of one right now that um, I didn't want to put addresses in the >> in the agenda packet or pictures. I didn't want to embarrass anybody. Um, but a good example, there's one on Pine
Street on the corner of Pine Lemon. It's a foreclosed property that people have moved out. Um, it's being vandalized. And what these ordinances generally do, um, the owner has to register the property. Say if you're a bank-owned property,
>> right? >> You have to register. Um, the city, it provides, it's an educational tool. Um the city makes you sign uh hopefully to say you're aware of what the code uh
requirements are and then uh part of the registration is to give our code officer the direct information. Who do you contact about this property? Who is responsible for this property? Um and we have all been through this. Um I think
even since Commissioner Moore's been here. Um, typically when somebody comes asking for a large lean reduction to the commission, um, a lot of times it's a non-resident owner who tells us they didn't get the notice or whatever. So, the purpose is to make it more efficient
um, so that you have um, whoever you want to include, whether it's abandoned or closed, vacant, um, non-residents, they sign up with the city. Um, you tell them what their responsibilities are. or
they sign that they know them and they they are required to keep on file who to contact and who is responsible for proper maintenance. Um that's about as far as I've gotten.
>> So like in the instance of MD Bank which we had quite a problem. We're contacting them to get them to clean up. Right. Correct. And then you have the KD Bank property. KD Bank property >> 3 350 North Summit or whatever it is right there.
>> Um remember it got all overgrown and we had we had problems because they were in Colorado and we and we've been able to they have a manager now for the property. We're able to get it cleaned up pretty quickly. We've gotten it cleaned up for the fur and things. But yes going through that would have been a
lot faster we had the information. Which brings up something I I want to bring here and I know we can't decide here but we are discussing it. The eucalyptus property they they the one that has been messed up. They are uh in the process of selling that property which is why you
know most recently they just found out apparently they didn't know that we had was it $16,000? >> Yeah, >> it's about that now >> $16,000. Are they the owner of the property or are they renters? >> They own it. >> So they own. So, at some point, we're gonna have to make a decision what we're
going to do um for a possible lean reduction or >> we need to wait until we see it sold. >> Right. Correct. >> The company the company >> gun if you want us to decide that now. >> Not today. We can't I don't we can't do that today. >> No, anytime before it's sold, we can't
do that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, you know, the whole point of of having a lean is that the new you know, it would pass to the new owner. So that's a, you know, >> would you all want to have a special meeting on that or wait till the 14th? >> Because they're wanting to close ASAP
with a company and company come to us with a lean reduction. >> They would have to come to that meeting. That's fine. You should come. >> Well, should we on the 14th or should we do it on a special meeting before then? >> I don't I don't see why we we need to be rushed to it. >> Yeah. Yeah. There's we have certain
procedures for a reason. >> Okay. um they can go off the paperwork and they they're saying that owner is saying they can't move until they close. So they want insurance and and then and of course but we need assurances that it's going to be cleaned up.
>> So you know if they move to Oregon and they haven't taken care of business, >> right, >> we're probably going to be stuck with. >> So I mean they you know we have rules for a reason. Yeah, >> let them come to the process and they can plead their case and then we can decide what we want to do. I mean 14th
meeting then >> yeah we're talking about >> something that we don't even know the details of. >> Okay. >> So I I don't think we need to have a special meeting just for that. Okay. Special meeting for every time someone comes fills out a form that >> Okay. I think that just, you know, time sake. Um I think what Lisa Devito is
talking about as far as getting some of this uh put in place, I think it's a very good idea. Um now, I'm not sure how many rentals we actually have here in Crescent City. Uh I do know that the vacancy rate in Crescent City is very, very high with just empty houses, right?
And those empty houses, a lot of them, okay, are in they're just kept in very very rough conditions. Yeah. >> And and so, you know, I think we probably should come up with some numbers, okay, which ones are rented >> and and get them set up in a program like this.
>> And then the ones that are just vacated, we need to start talking to those owners and saying, "Okay, what can we do with this this house or whatever, you know, that you've vacated?" We have that big house uh on eucalyptus right next door
to the dump that that nice house in the corner everywhere. You know, now I know they're from Michigan, but they're never there. >> So, the house just remains empty all the time and and it's like, you know, what are we saving this for? But some questions have to be.
>> Sure. My my my biggest question is how would we find out what properties would apply? you know, if we decide that it's exact for uh non-resident rentals, um how would we get that information? I mean, obviously, you'd have to you have
to go door to door. I know there are some nonprofits that you can that will help out with those types of surveys, but you'd have to take a survey. You you're not going to know about some sort of survey. >> You you call the owner. >> You can call the owner if you can get the number,
>> right? Because I mean, property records don't have >> they have addresses, right? I think we're doing it this the opposite way that well the number one thing to do is to maybe call a couple of jurisdictions that have this and ask them which comes first the chicken or the egg.
>> I think I think the chicken comes first in that >> you enact it you say what it is and then it's their obligation to contact the city like you can send a notice out that you're adopting this
ordinance. the um but it helps you it's it's an affirmative step that you can take that helps you get people to come to you. >> Right. Right. >> Um most people that I have come especially if it's money involved >> well money
>> okay and that's the other thing to ment the two the two things that are most important for Crescent City. The whole purpose of this is that proactive work and to make things easier. So, for example, Palm Coast property registration for years was $5 annually.
Um, if one person owns multiple properties, you know, you could just let them register once and just boom, make a list and as little paperwork as possible. We're not Miami, we're not Broward. We need staff person, >> right? We need to keep it very, very
simple. So, I have put this out for us to review at our leisure for staff to review and uh I don't know if um our code officer if she's going to a convention anytime soon or has any colleagues but um it will probably be
helpful to find somebody like in Pop Coast and say you know when you for somebody just starting out you know you have recommendations. >> Yeah, I agree. So, but bankowned properties have been their mess and
there there's an investor owned property up the street on my street that um well, it's a problem sometimes. So, um so that's what we got and I made a list. Um there's four different ordinances in
your packet. one for Broward, one for Miami. There's a forum from Broward and then um two two from Pal Coast, one for um rentals and one for uh vacant properties. >> So, and I do know that part of this um
in Florida, of course, short-term rentals um >> Oh, it doesn't even touch that, >> right? Which because we have to be careful about that too because of the >> rights that have been promagated by the legislature and all that. But I think that we can all take this home and think about a little bit. He's going to go through the protocol. So
>> if anybody has anything else, I think that this is going to turn the workshop and then give about 10 minute break. We'll come back special meeting. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. So >> we need to take a vote, right? No. >> All right. >> It's uh ajourned here.
>> Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And Are these >> 10 minute break everyone? >> Hopefully he'll be done by then. >> Do you want to be unhooked? Um
>> and then rehooked. Yeah.