Dale Martin
City Manager
City of Fernandina Beach
February 19, 2016 1:00 a.m.
The City Commission conducted an inaugural workshop on Tuesday, February 9. The intent of the workshop (and future similar workshops) was to engage the City Commission on a single topic of interest, discussing the issue in greater detail than is usually available at a regular City Commission meeting. This first workshop reviewed the City’s current organizational structure.
Each department director shared the current organization of his or her department. The directors also offered insight into what was desired with regard to additional staff. The discussions provided direction to staff as budget preparations begin for the 2016-2017 fiscal year.
Most departmental discussions at the workshop were straightforward. The most common request was to add more hours of staffing through the transition of part-time employees to full-time employees. Since such a transition incurs additional expenses beyond simply wages to the budget, those requests will have to be closely examined. The Commissioners inquired as to the opportunity to expand contracted services, especially for more routine tasks in order to shift experienced and skilled City staff to more specialized or critical projects.
One of the most vigorous discussions of the evening, though, was related to the Community Development Department, specifically code enforcement. The Commissioners voiced concerns and frustrations regarding the state of code enforcement within the City: why do certain violations continue to occur, why have so few citations been issued or fines been levied, why does the City operate on a re-active rather than a pro-active basis with regard to code enforcement?
Code enforcement is a typically difficult task to balance. On one hand, violations are prevalent and obvious: signs and landscaping encroachments in the right-of-way, boats and trailers stored in front yards, commercial operations in residential areas, and blighted buildings, overgrown yards, and trash cans in neighborhoods. On the other hand, how aggressive should the City be in addressing the violations? Sometimes the enforcement of code compliance is perceived as heavy-handed.
The City has one designated Code Compliance Officer, appropriately trained and certified by the State of Florida. With only the one officer, the City’s efforts are typically complaint-driven unless the violation immediately threatens public health, safety, or welfare. The code enforcement process is outlined on the City’s website: www.fbfl.us/codeprocess, and a link is further provided to the proper Complaint Form.
In summary, when a complaint is received, the Compliance Officer investigates the complaint and, if validated, documents the violation with photographs and other notes. The subject property owner is then notified of the violation. The notification will be through personal contact, a notice posted on the property (a “door-hanger”), or certified mail. The property owner is informed of appropriate time by which the violation must be eliminated or corrected. If a violation is not corrected, the Compliance Officer forwards the violation to the Code Enforcement and Appeals Board for a hearing and resolution, including the assessment of fines and fees, which, if unpaid, can be attached as liens to the subject property.
The process, by its very nature, is time-consuming. Consider a simple violation takes a day or two to investigate based on priority, time to notify the property owner (which often involves research to find a phone or email contact), an appropriate time to correct the violation depending on the nature of the violation, and then, if not corrected, scheduling, with appropriate legal notice, the hearing before the Code Enforcement and Appeals Board. From start to end, the process for each violation can take several weeks or even months depending on the circumstances surrounding each case.
The City Commission’s initial direction is that more enforcement is needed due to ongoing or repeated violations that seem to be ignored. A common complaint is related to signs placed in the City’s rights-of-way. The signs “magically” appear each weekend for local and remote businesses, and those signs are illegal. But the signs go away (ceasing the violation) in a day or two, making the traditional enforcement process difficult. In order to address this type of ongoing illegal behavior, the City’s compliance codes will have to be reviewed and amended, and, as a result of irregular boundaries, perhaps coordinated with appropriate County code regulations.
Some less obvious code violations are potentially explosive: garbage cans are supposed to be removed from the curbside in a timely manner following collection, recreational vehicles, including boats and campers, are restricted from storage and parking in driveways. How aggressive should City officials be in citing the violators of those regulations? Should the City issue an immediate citation (fine) for the aforementioned violations or allow a reasonable period to achieve compliance? What is “reasonable time”? What should be done about repeated violations- for example, business owners are aware that signs in the right-of-way are illegal, but the same signs appear time and time again. What is the “community will” to the inevitable clamor that follows a new enforcement effort? These types of violations are all over the community.
Code enforcement has obviously drawn the attention of the City Commission and City staff will respond and operate under the direction provided. I encourage everyone to become familiar with the City’s code enforcement regulations and processes. Cooperation (and common sense) should be the norm for compliance with the City codes which are designed to protect the value and the quality of life of the community.
Code enforcement should be prioritized by citizen complaints or safety issues. We have so many rules that it is easy for a municipality to look on code enforcement as a revenue generator. Can’t you hear it already? “An additional code enforcer would pay for themselves!”
The town is recovering from the Mandrick scandal. Lets not walk into a new one.
I didn’t read anything in Dale’s piece nor in the discussion by the Commissioners that anybody was looking for this area to be a profit center. It is clear that the goal is mitigating the situation through activity that removes the violation. Sometimes in an after the fact case such as tree removal the prior status cannot be restored and there needs to be some way to compensate for the infraction.
Tom, your personification of the impact fee case is an unfortunate one, especially considering that John was not even an employee of the City when it purchased the system. What about the commissioners that approved the impact fee structure and didn’t require an adequate level of due diligence in documenting a rational dual nexus validation (or determining that none existed)? Why people persist in the demonetization of individuals is beyond me. Perhaps the Pope would characterize such behavior as “un-Christian” also.
Maybe we could ask some questions about the fact that even when violations are quasi solved, like the beach access (remember that?!) , that everyone comes up with a plan to fix everything and then everyone is happy but nothing gets done. Where is the beach access? Still grass, still palm trees. Still the same crap.