Loading...
2024-06-11 Handwritten Minutes ".0F•oK4-b CITY OF OKEECHOBEE CODE ENFORCEMENT � <al; JUNE 11 , 2024, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING F., ;LL • �� 55 SOUTHEAST THIRD AVENUE, OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA 34974 V. 4,oes��� HANDWRITTEN MINUTES — CHRISTINA CURL 9 �0 Mission Statement: The mission of the City of Okeechobee is to provide accommodating services that enhance the quality of life for our citizens and businesses in a fiscally sound manner. Vision Statement: The City of Okeechobee will maintain a vibrant and prosperous community built on our heritage, history, unique character, and small-town atmosphere. CALL TO ORDER A. Special Magistrate Azcona called the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearing to order on Tuesday June 11. 2024, at 6:01 P.M. in the City Council Chambers located at 55 Southeast 3`d Avenue, Room 200. Okeechobee. Florida. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Special Magistrate Azcona. II. ATTENDANCE Present Absent Special Magistrate Roger Azcona, Esquire x City Attorney Greg Hyden x Police Administrative Lieutenant Bettye Taylor x Code Enforcement Officer Anthony Smith x Code Enforcement Officer Christina Curl x III. AGENDA A. Requests for the addition. deferral, or withdrawal of agenda items. There were none. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND ADMINISTRATION OF OATH A. Special Magistrate Azcona dispensed with the reading and approved the April 9. 2024. Minutes. B. This being a Quasi- Judicial proceeding. Special Magistrate Azcona collectively administered an Oath to Code Officers Smith, and Curl, Mr. Dale Williams, Mr. Miguel Raya, and Mr. Benjamin Falk. V. CONTINUED CASES A. Case No. 230817007; Tanglewood, LTD c/o A & M Properties Inc, 420 Northwest 9th Street, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) Chapter 3, Section 304.1.1 Unsafe conditions (Exhibit 1). AS- violation of IPMC Chapter 3, Section 304.1.1 Unsafe conditions for having multiple roofs in need of repair/replacement. Chapter 30, Section 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown grass, weeds, and shrubs. The exterior of the apartment buildings is in need of maintenance and cleaning. The respondent is not a repeat violator. On April 9. 2024, the case was presented to the Special Magistrate who ruled for the Lien/Order to be recorded in public records with a lien balance of $13,750.00 and for the City Staff to make a follow up recommendation on the roof repair timeline and delay of fine accrual. On April 10, 2024. Lien/Order recorded at the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court. File #2024003924, Page(s):1. On April 11, 2024, Recorded Lien/Order mailed out via USPS certified return receipt to both addresses of record. Received by Erin Wilson on April 15, 2024. On April 15. 2024, Roof contract received for the two most southern units. On April 24, 2024, SOV/NOH mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the May 14, 2024, Hearing to Clarify the timeline for the roof repairs and discuss the fine accrual. Mailed to the address of record and the property address of record. Received by Lana, Erin Wilson, and at the business address on April 29, 2024. On May 6, 2024, Code Officers Page 1 of 11 V. CONTINUED CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230817007: CONTINUED: Smith and Curl inspected the property: still non-compliant. no work had begun on the roof of the apartments. Photos in file. On May 13. 2024, Email received from the Special Magistrate Azcona on Sunday May 12, 2024, asking that the hearing for May 14, 2024, be postponed due to him being in a complex trial in Vero Beach in the case of FL vs. Washburn (21CF1153) and he is unable to make it back by 6 pm. Notice of Hearing postponed and SOV/NOH for the June 11' Hearing emailed to Mr. Falk and mailed via USPS certified mail to all addresses of record. Received by all on May 20. 2024. On May 13. 2024. Email received from Mr. Ben Falk thanking us for the update and that they had to terminate a previous permit that was pulled on the roofs due to switching roof contractors. They worked with the building department and got the prior permit voided on 4/25. OCC Quality Roofing is now clear to pull the new permit and get started. They are reaching out to OCC Quality Roofing to get an update on when they will be starting and will keep us informed. He believes we were previously provided with a copy of the contract for the first two building roof replacements. They will also get us a copy of the signed contract for the remaining roofs. Copy of email placed in the file. On June 4, 2024. Received issued roof permit. Permit was issued on May 17, 2024. for apartments 19-22 & 23-26. City Staff received an email from Mr. Ben Falk advising that the roofers have started work on the roofs and they are making good progress with photo attached. On June 5. 2024. Code Officer Smith inspected the property; still non-compliant, they have started the roofs on the first two buildings. Photos in file. To comply with City ordinances, the property owner needs to replace the roofs on all buildings in a timely manner. "The City must treat all property owners the same and thus, as with any other property owner, if he/she/it can show documentation that remediation is occurring, the City does consider abatements of daily fines. In this case. two of the six buildings are under contract for a new roof. So long as those proceed expeditiously and that there is no breach of contract by the property owner, the City recommends abating the daily fines. With regard to the remaining four buildings, there is no documentation that they are being brought into compliance expeditiously and thus the City recommends the imposition of daily fines as they would with any other property owner." RA- anything you would like to add Mr. Hyden GH- yes, I have some questions for Mr. Smith or Mrs. Curl, whom ever can answer the questions AS- okay go ahead GH- there were a total of six buildings that were the subject of the lien/order correct AS- that is correct GH- it is the understanding that two of the buildings have either completed the reroofing process or substantial work has been completed in the reroofing process AS- yes GH-there are four remaining buildings that you have received contracts. under the contracts what years do they anticipate the reroofing to occur AS- 2025 for the next two and 2026 for the final two GH- so the final four, two would be completed in a year and the final two a year after that AS- that is correct GH- consistent with that is the city recommending an abatement of daily fines for the two buildings that the roofs were completed or substantially completed as of today's date AS- that is correct GH- and the four remaining buildings the city is not willing to abate the daily fines because of the timeframe for which those roofs would be completed a year from now and then a year after that for the four buildings. is that correct AS- that is correct GH- is that consistent with the city's recommendations for all other property owners that have a contract with a year to two years out for completion AS- that is correct GH- I have nothing further your honor RA- I wanted to ask Mr. Smith how much abatement are you proposing in this case on behalf of the City of Okeechobee Page 2 of 11 V. CONTINUED CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230817007: CONTINUED: AS- on behalf of the City of Okeechobee the abatement of the fines after the $13,750.00 that accrued for the first two buildings. if I not saying this wrong then after that the daily fines would continue until they bring the properties into compliance RA- at the rate of what, the same because I think the daily fine is $100.00 AS- yes, the same RA- okay, per day AS- yes RA- so, based on the six buildings it has accumulated to this date to the $13,750.00 AS- yes RA- so now on behalf of the city you are asking that the fine continues at a rate of $100.00 still AS- yes RA- to my understanding I thought we were requesting a reduction in fine as two out of the six is completed AS- right it was abated down to the $13,750.00 RA- so are you trying to reduce the $13.750.00 or keep that AS- we want to keep that in place so that they will continue to move forward with the project because you know some people will stop and never go back to it, we want to keep it on record and them to continue to make the repairs to the rest of the apartments RA- okay, so the $100.00 a day fine will continue to accumulate until everything is finished AS- yes RA- okay, alright. Do we have a representative for Tanglewood LTD here BF- yes, I am here RA- please state your name for the record BF- Ben Falk RA- what is it you would like to say Mr. Falk or ask Mr. Smith sir BF- well it sounds like the city attorney is saying one thing and Mr. Smith is saying something different. What we talked about in the last meeting was that there would be an abatement of the $100.00 per day fine if we complete the first two buildings and if we provide contracts for the remaining two buildings that we agreed to doing two buildings in 2025 and the remaining two buildings in 2026 what the city attorney just said was that the $100.00 per day would continue pertaining to the other two buildings and that is not what we talked about in the last meeting I mean that equates to over $70..000.00 in fines. The reason why we set this up to be spread over three years is because this is a low-income housing project subsidized by the government and there are limited funds and limited reserve funds. We are spending all the reserve funds just to do the first two buildings. I mean if we are going to be fined continually a $100.00 per day over the next two years we might as well throw in the towel. There are no funds to do that and that is not what we discussed in the last meeting RA- okay so clarify for me what you believe was your agreement and then I will let the city respond BF- the agreement per our last meeting that there would be a lien/order recorded for the $13,750.00 which accrued fees from the date of the original through the date of our last meeting on April 10th then the $100.00 per day would pause as long as we took care of all the issues pertaining to the property with the exception of the roofs and then we would do the first two roofs withing 60 days, which we completed, and then we would do the next two roofs in a year, and the remaining final two roofs a year from that point. Then the $100.00 per day would be abated as long as we met our end of that bargain. Which we have. RA- okay, do you have any questions for Mr. Smith BF- no, just to make sure that is what we talk about because the city attorney is saying something different RA- okay, so what you are asking for based on my understanding is to keep the lien as is for the $13,750.00 and then pause the $100.00 per day until the project is completed BF- correct RA- okay. thank you. Mr. Smith, what was your understanding it sounds like you have different opinions. What was the city prepared to do Page 3 of 11 V. CONTINUED CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230817007; CONTINUED: AS- I am prepared to do that but if doesn't meet the deadlines the fines will go back to the day they started and like he said it would be like $70,000.00 RA- okay, I understand that the city wants to encourage Tanglewood to comply with all the city codes and get this thing done on time but there is still another course also that even if the lien continued to accrue and the fines accumulated you could still come back and asked for a lien reduction and that is still on the table AS- absolutely RA- but with regards to your schedule to getting this done how feasible is it Mr. Falk that the contract in this case will be completed timely BF- as far as 2025 and 2026 RA- yes, because you have six houses, you have done two and you are looking at doing two in 2025 and two in 2026, so we are looking at four more years before everything is going to come into compliance BF- no sir. not four more years. two more years RA- okay two more years. I see it now BF- there is two remaining buildings per year RA- okay. I see it BF- and we need that time to build up our capital reserve funds so that we have the money to pay for the roofing RA- okay, I see what you are saying. I am going to ask the City Attorney Mr. Hyden his position on this matter on behalf of the city GH- sir we can't simply agree to that as far as the city's perspective because if we allow one property owner two years to finish a roofing project as a city. we have to offer the same thing to any other property owner seeking to reroof their house or their building. That is the issue that the city runs into we have to as a municipality governed by the Florida law is to treat all residences similar situated in a similar way to be equitable and so if the city were to agree to give two years and abate all fines during that period of time we would then have to agree to do the same thing to any other property owner. we simply can't agree to do that because there is no way we could do that because Code Enforcement would have to give everyone two years. and the point of Code Enforcement would a sensually be nullified. So, the city's prospective is that we simply can't agree to abate fines for two years. The property owner can come back and seek a reduction in the overall fines which the ordinance does allow which would give a substantial savings to the property owner. but we can't agree to abate fines for that period of time RA- okay, I see what you are saying, thank you Mr. Hyden. Mr. Falk is there anything else you would like me to consider before I make a decision in this matter BF- well I mean you already have a lien on the property. I wanted to come today and see what could be done to remove the lien all together and then revisit in 2025 and 2026. I understand the city's point of view in relation in wanting to maintain some level of lien which the lien is on the property but the continuation of $100.00 per day fine I mean if we don't have the money to redo the roofs how are we going to have the money to pay $70.000.00 in fines that is ridiculous if we are going to be subject to those kind of fines why would we want to move forward with completing the rest of them. At this point I am not sure what to do. The project has limited funds. It is a subsidized housing apartment project that is government subsidized both the loan and the rent so there is not a lot of excess funds to be able to do it. If we had the funds, we would do it. It is not a matter of willingness, it is a matter of our financial ability to do that. so we are asking for consideration if the city is unwilling to make any type of consideration on that I am not really sure how to proceed on our end RA- I can see what you are saying GH- your honor if I can just briefly respond that is why the city has an application to reduce fines. The fines are not abated but the applicant can request to reduce the fines and the ordinance gives a maximum amount by which those can be reduced. which is a generous reduction that is the answer to that sort of an issue. But we have an understandably a number of property owners that come in weather they are simply the owner of the home or a business owner that have similar Page 4 of 11 V. CONTINUED CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230817007; CONTINUED: financial restraints and that is why we have created a fine reduction that they can seek but not a fine abatement RA- okay BF- I mean what is the maximum fine reduction, I mean what are we talking about, even if it is 50 percent we would still have over $35,000.00 in fines. It's not affordable, it's not reasonable RA- yes, well Mr. Falk at this time BF- we have acted in good faith to do what we have agreed to do. and we have done that, and now all of sudden it seems like we have a curve ball here. What is being presented is not what we talked about at the last meeting all of sudden there is a change in position here RA- okay, that is why we are here at the Magistrate's Hearing is because Tanglewood and the City Code Enforcement are not able to come to an agreement. Mr. Smith do you see some kind of way that you could come to an agreement with Tanglewood based on what they are proposing today AS- I will have to sit down with the city attorney to see if there is some way, we can solve this situation RA- okay, I see what you are saying. Mr. Falk, this is what I am prepared to do today. I am going to defer the ruling until the next hearing I would like to give you, Tanglewood and City Code Enforcement, along with their attorney Mr. Hyden to see if there is a way something can be worked out to resolve this issue. I can definitely see the position of the City and also your position but because of the Code Enforcement and what we have and the relief that is actually available and it is limited and to factuate the purpose of Code Enforcement I am actually leaning towards the side that in the end you still have a final relief in regards to seeking a lien reduction and at this time I am not aware of the city trying to foreclose or seeking immediate payment so that still gives some kind of a lead way. So, for the purpose of seeing if something can be worked out, I would like to defer the ruling until the next hearing. So that is what I am prepared to do today. I would like to give you and the city and the city attorney some time to see if you can resolve the issue if not then I will render a ruling by the next hearing BF- okay, what will be the date of the next hearing and what needs to take place between now and then RA- well between now and then I would like you to contact Mr. Smith and Mrs. Curl together with their attorney Mr. Hyden's approval to see if you can work something out with regards to abatement or any type of agreement with regards to timelines or the completion of this roofing project so that it will come into compliance, as long as the city can agree I will reserve ruling AS- the next hearing is on July 9th RA- so our next hearing date will be July 9th is there anything else you would like to add on this Mr. Hyden GH- no thank you AS- okay well talking with our City Attorney Mr. Hyden he is saying there is really nothing that we can agree to that it is going to have to be the way he said it is going to be that we cannot abate the fines for two years and not expect someone else to come in and not be able to ask for the same thing RA- okay, I agree. I see what you are saying so I will still reserve ruling till then just to give it some more time, okay Mr. Falk BF- I'm sorry there is an echo, and I am having a hard time hearing RA- at this time the fine will continue until my final ruling I will give it more time to see if something can be worked out BF- an abatement is different than a pause is that correct RA- my understanding is that you are asking for a pause to all accruing fines, and I can understand as to why the city cannot do that as they would have to give it to everybody else BF- so now you are even saying that the fines will not be abated, but neither will they be paused RA- are you saying paused BF- yes, in our last meeting we talked about the $100.00 per day fines being paused until we met certain obligations, which we have met. and they would continue to be paused until the next date rolled around until the next group needed to be done Page 5 of 11 V. CONTINUED CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230817007; CONTINUED: RA- okay BF- I may understand that there may be a difference between a pause and an abatement of fines RA- I don't think there was an agreement, was there some type of agreement with the city to pause the fines CC- there was a discussion AS- there was a discussion BF- well I have it in email from Mrs. Curl that is what we had agreed to in our last meeting RA- okay it seems like there was a discussion about a pause, but at this time I previously signed an order that there would be $100.00 per day fine until everything was completed. So, I am going to have to stand on my order. I am not prepared to change my order at this time BF- well the email says that the daily fine accrual of the $100.00 per day fine has been paused per the conversation that the contracts were received, and work completed within 60 days of the hearing and if that work is completed on time it will be paused until 2025 and then 2026 as long as all work is completed on time. and that email is based on the exact discussion that we had at the last hearing. RA- Mr. Hyden what is you take on that GH- I would have to see a copy of the email to see if it was an actual contract or if it was moralizing discussions but at this point the city's position has not changed, we cannot agree to abate fines for upwards of 24 months without offering the same deal to every other property owner our ordinances simply do not allow us to do that BF- again is there a difference between pausing and abatement GH- not that I am aware of there is not a legal definition of a pause BF- so if I wanted to have this lien removed today you are saying that there is a $13,750.00 accrued amount as of April 10, 2024, so are you saying that now it is actually more than that now because that $100.00 has continued because we did not actually complete all six buildings. Even though that was not what we talked about at the last meeting GH- you and I have not discussed anything at a prior meeting so I cannot speak to that BF- that's right you were not here you were gone there was another attorney GH- the language of the lien/order remains binding until the lien is reduced, modified. or released RA- and my previous order that I signed was a $100.00 per day BF- does the magistrate have the authority to make a changed based on what we discussed RA- well I am not prepared to change it at this time BF- okay RA- I don't have sufficient evidence to make a discission on that so that is why I am going to defer it to our next meeting. So, Mr. Falk I will review the minutes of our last meeting and further discuss this one and I will consider it and see if there is any progress on any agreement between you and the city if not, I will render a ruling at that time with regards to any abatement or pause BF- what was the progress you told me that you are going to review the progress RA- well you informed me that you have pending contracts in this case BF- for the remaining four buildings, two in 2025 and two in 2026 that is what my proposal was at the last hearing because of the project and the financial capabilities of the project RA- okay BF- so that was the plan that we came up with at the last hearing and in good faith we met those obligations thus far, no it seems like the city is doing a 180 on what we discussed and what we agree to otherwise maybe we wouldn't have done the first two roofs. I mean I don't know. I mean this property is owned by over 20 limited partners and the limited partners do not have the ability to pony up that amount of cash the project has to sustain itself and if it cannot I guess it can be foreclosed on and it can become someone else's problem but we are trying to do what we can do in good faith and presented a solution and now it doesn't seem like that solution is being honored based on what we talked about in the last hearing and that doesn't seem fair and right. I understand that everybody needs to be treated the same but that is not what we talked about in the last hearing Page 6 of 11 V. CONTINUED CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230817007; CONTINUED: RA- provide a copy of that email to Mr. Hyden. I understand that they may have made an attempt to provide a resolution but ultimately it has to be approved by the city attorney and ultimately be proposed. I mean there is no agreement if the city attorney does not agree with it because of code enforcement then I cannot do something in fairness if it is not a relief that I can provide you. I would prefer to ponder on this a little longer and see if there is something that can be worked out BF- okay RA- alright let's do that, thank you for being here Mr. Falk and hope to see you at the next hearing and hopefully we will have a better outcome for your situation BF- yes. hopefully RA- okay, alright thank you sir BF- because nothing can physically be done to the property until 2025, so nothing is going to change. The only thing that can change is some conversations between us, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Curl and the city attorney on some potential resolution where everybody can have some level of satisfaction, because it seems very one-handed and one-sided. Again, we have done what we agreed to do in good faith. and we have done that and now it just seems like RA- and I want to give the city an opportunity to see if they can work something out with you but based on what I have heard tonight it doesn't sound like they can treat you different than others, so I want to consider everything thoroughly before I render on this one. Okay. Mr. Falk BF- okay RA- alright thank you sir, next case VI. DELINQUENT BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS A. Case No. 240430015; Janelle's Photography, LLC, 311 Southwest 17th Street, Apt. 311B, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 50. Sections 50-36 Issuance of local business tax. 50- 43 Penalties for violation of local business tax regulations (Exhibit 2). AS- violation of Chapter 50, Sections 50-36 Issuance of local business tax. 50-43 Penalties for violation of local business tax regulations for not renewing their local business tax (BTR) by September 30, 2023, and engaging in business without first having procured an active local BTR from the City of Okeechobee. The respondent is not a repeat violator. On March 26. 2024. 250 Day Delinquent Letter mailed via USPS certified return receipt. Received on April 2. 2024, signature not legible. On April 2, 2024, received an email from Trish. the City's BTR Specialist advising that the notice was received by Janelle's mother who stated that Janelle no longer lives at her address, and she gave an updated mailing address of 311 SW 17th St, Apt 331B, Okeechobee, FL. 34974. On April 2, 2024. 250 Day Delinquent Letter mailed via USPS certified return receipt to the updated address. The notice was delivered to an individual on April 5. 2024. per USPS tracking details. The city has not received the notice nor the signature receipt card back yet. On April 30, 2024, Code Officer Curl verified with Trish. the City's BTR Specialist, that the BTR has not been paid. On April 30, 2024, SOV/NOH and Delinquent Letter mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the June 11, 2024, Hearing. On May 28, 2024, Code Officer Smith posted the property and the public notices board at City Hall with the Notice to Appear. Photos in file. On June 3, 2024, Code Officer Curl received a call from Janelle, stating that she received the posted notice to appear. and she wanted to know how much she owed so she could take care of it. She was advised that she owed $276.25, and it could be paid at City Hall in Room 102 the Finance Department by cash or check. On June 4, 2024, Code Officer Curl verified with Trish. the City's BTR Specialist. that the BTR has not been paid. On June 10, 2024. the City Staff received notice that the BTR was paid in full. A copy of the paid receipt was placed in the file. Case closed. The city recommends no further action on this matter at this time RA- anything else you would like to add Mr. Hyden GH- no Sir Mr. Smith did a great job RA- okay I will make a finding in the case of the City of Okeechobee v. Janelle's Photography. LLC, Case No. 240430015 the respondent was cited for violation of Chapter 50. Sections 50-36 Issuance of local business tax. 50-43 Penalties for violation of local business tax regulations. For the respondent not renewing their local Business Tax Receipt (BTR) by September 30, 2023, and engaging in business without first having procured an active local BTR from the City of Page 7 of 11 VI. DELINQUENT BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS CONTINUED A. Case No. 240430015; CONTINUED: Okeechobee. The total amount due is $276.25. I will make a finding that they were in violation of the statues per the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith and the respondents did come into compliance yesterday June 10' for having paid the full balance. So even though the city recommends no further action in this case we will note for the record that the respondent was in violation of the sections cited in this case and for penalties for violations of local business tax regulations from September 30, 2023, until they came into compliance on June 10, 2024. So, it will be noted. Anything else Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- okay thank you sir, next case B. Case No. 240430016; Blakes Transport LLC, 1410 Southwest 5Ui Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 50, Sections 50-36 Issuance of local business tax, 50-43 Penalties for violation of local business tax regulations (Exhibit 3). AS- violation of Chapter 50, Sections 50-36 Issuance of local business tax, 50-43 Penalties for violation of local business tax regulations for not renewing their local business tax (BTR) by September 30. 2023. and engaging in business without first having procured an active local BTR from the City of Okeechobee. The respondent is not a repeat violator. On March 25. 2024. 250 Day Delinquent Letter mailed via USPS certified return receipt. The notice was received on March 28. 2024, signature not legible. On April 30, 2024, Code Officer Curl verified with Trish. the City's BTR Specialists, that the BTR has not been paid. On April 30, 2024. SOV/NOH and Delinquent Letter mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the June 11, 2024. Hearing. The notice was received by Yvonne Sheldon on May 4, 2024. On June 4. 2024, Code Officer Curl verified with Trish. the City's BTR Specialist, that the BTR has not been paid. To comply with City ordinances. the business owner needs to pay past due amounts to bring the BTR up to date. The City recommends in accordance with the City's fine schedule of $125.00 per day to begin June 12, 2024, until the BTR is brought up to date, plus a $50.00 administration fee. RA- anything you would like to add Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- okay I will make a finding in the case of the City of Okeechobee v. Blakes Transport. Case No. 240430016.. the respondent was cited for violation of Chapter 50, Sections 50-36 Issuance of local business tax. 50-43 Penalties for violation of local business tax regulations for not renewing their local business tax by September 30, 2023. and engaging in business without first having procured an active local business tax from the City of Okeechobee. The total amount due is $361.56. I just want to verify Mr. Smith you mailed the 250 Day Letter by certified return receipt, and it was received and signed for AS- it was received and signed for but the signature on the card was not legible, you couldn't read it RA- okay I see what you are saying. I see it and I am satisfied. I will make a finding that the respondent was properly served per the certified mail service and in accordance with the city code. and they received notice that they were in violation of not having an active BTR. So. I will make a finding in this case that they are in violation and follow the city's recommendations that they be fined $125.00 per day to begin June 12, 2024. until the BTR is brought up to date. plus a $50.00 administrative fee. Anything else Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- okay next case VII. REPEAT VIOLATORS A. Case No. 240514003: Spirit CV Okeechobee FL, LLC, CVS Health Corp. c/o Altus Group US Inc., 106 North Parrott Avenue. Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30. Sections 30-43 Public nuisances. 30-44 General cleaning and beautification (Exhibit 4). AS- violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having overgrown shrubs and bushes. dead shrubs and bushes, trash. and debris in the plant beds. and a fallen parking lot light. The respondent is a repeat violator, previous Case#210317014, for violation of Chapter 30, Section 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. On May 13, 2024, Code Officer Smith received a complaint from Jeff Newell that this property has Page 8 of 11 VII. REPEAT VIOLATORS CONTINUED A. Case No. 240514003; CONTINUED: overgrown vegetation, trash and debris in the plant beds, dead shrubs all over the property and a fallen light. On May 14, 2024, SOV/NOH, photos and a copy of the city ordinances mailed via USPS certified return receipt for the June 11' Hearing. Hand delivered SOV/NOH, photos, and a copy of the city ordinances to the Store Manager. The notice was received by Victor Daveiga on May 20, 2024. On May 17, 2024, Code Officer Curl received a call from Mike Pasquence with All Florida Looks Inc., who will be taking care of all the landscaping. He stated that his irrigation tech would be there today to look at the irrigation system and he would put in a work order to get the overgrown vegetation and trash taken care of. On June 4, 2024, Code Officer Smith inspected the property; still non-compliant, the parking lot light has not been repaired, and the dead shrubs/bushes have not been replaced at this time. However, they made great progress with the property: cleaned the trash from the flower beds. trimmed, shaped and cleaned up the small trees in the beds, washed and painted the building. Photos in file. To comply with City ordinances, the property owner needs to complete the repairs to the irrigation system and the broken parking lot light. The city recommends in accordance with the City's fine schedule of $150.00 per day to begin on June 12, 2024, until the property is brought into compliance, plus a $100.00 administration fee. RA- anything you would like to add Mr. Hyden GH- no, Code Officer Smith cover everything I would have asked him anyway RA- okay I will make a finding in the case of the City of Okeechobee v Spirit CV Okeechobee FL, LLC, CVS Health Corp, c/o Altus Group US Inc., Case No. 240514003. The respondent was cited for violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for overgrown shrubs and bushes, dead shrubs and bushes, trash and debris in the plant beds, and a fallen parking lot light. I did want to ask Mr. Smith you took all the photos in this case AS- that is correct RA- and they accurately represent the condition of the property at the time they were taken AS- that is correct as well RA- so based on the testimony of the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith and the exhibits presented at this hearing I will find that the respondents are in violation of the chapters cited for overgrown shrubs and bushes, dead shrubs and bushes, trash and debris in the plant beds, and a fallen parking lot light. I have reviewed the exhibits in this case and there is plenty of factual evidence to support the allegations in this case so the respondents are in violation. I will also make a finding that they are repeat offenders under Case No. 210317014 for Chapter 30, Section 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. I will follow the city's recommendation of a fine of $150.00 per day to begin June 12, 2024, until the property is brought into compliance, plus a $100.00 administrative fee. Anything else on this case Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- okay next case VIII. COMPLIED CASES A. Case No. 230719011; Blue Spring Holdings LLC, Northeast 9' Avenue, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification (Exhibit 5). AS- violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having vacant lots with overgrown grass, weeds, bushes, shrubs or trees. The Respondent is a repeat violator, previous case#191115015, violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30- 43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. On March 12, 2024, the case was presented to the Special Magistrate for Fine Reduction consideration. The Special Magistrate ruled to reduce the fine by 50%, reducing the fine from $10,100.00 to $5,050.00 plus a $100.00 administrative fee, totaling $5,150.00. On March 14, 2024, a Fine Reduction Approval Letter was mailed via USPS certified mail. The city received the signature card back with no signature left with an individual March 18, 2024 @ 5:55pm. USPS tracking details placed in file. On March 15, 2024, Code Officer Curl received a phone call from the property owner Gad reference to the Fine Reduction Ruling, he was very displeased and stated that the ruling went totally against him, and it was an unfair ruling as he had spoken with and met with Anthony and I and he just doesn't Page 9 of 11 VIII. COMPLIED CASES CONTINUED A. Case No. 230719001: CONTINUED: understand how this came about. He asked who the Code Enforcement Supervisor was. He was advised that would be Lt. Taylor or Chief Hagan. He then asked if there was anything that they could do about the Magistrate's Ruling at this point or was his only option was to appeal it and he had 30 days to do that. I advised him that they could not change the Magistrate's ruling and advised him yes that was his option and that he had 30 days from the hearing to appeal it and it would have to be done through the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court. On March 21, 2024. received an email from Steve Dobbs wanting to know what the appeal process is for the magistrate's order. Code Officer Curl replied to Mr. Dobbs to let him know that the City of Okeechobee cannot give legal advice. With regards to appealing the order of the Special Magistrate, please see section 18-38(b) of the City of Okeechobee's Code of Ordinances. On March 22, 2024, Fine reduction payment received in the amount of $5,150.00 paid by check#2368. Receipt#49798 issued. Release of Lien prepared for the mayor's signature. On April 10, 2024, Release of Lien recorded at the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court. File #2024003922, Page(s): 1. On April 11, 2024, Release of Lien mailed out via USPS regular mail with a copy of the receipt for the fine reduction payment. Case Closed. The City recommends that it be noted for the record that the fine totaling $5,150.00 was paid in full on March 22, 2024. The Release of Lien was recorded on April 10, 2024, at the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court. No further action on this matter. Case is closed. RA- anything you would like to add on this one Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- okay I will follow the city's recommendation that it be noted for the record that the fine totaling $5,150.00 was paid in full on March 22, 2024. The Release of Lien was recorded on April 10. 2024, at the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court. No further action on this matter. The case was closed. Anything else on this case Mr. Smith AS- no sir RA- okay next case B. Case No. 240219005: Sam Lane do Richard Roberts, Northwest 10" Street, Violation of Code of Ordinances Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification (Exhibit 6). AS- violation of Chapter 30. Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances. 30-44 General cleaning and beautification for having an inoperable/unregistered vehicle on the property with what looks like someone living in the vehicle. trash and debris around the vehicle and on the property. The respondent is a repeat violator. previous case #210210008. violation of Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles. 30-44 General cleaning and beautification. On April 9. 2024. The case was presented to the Special Magistrate and found to be in violation of Chapter 30. Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification and imposed a fine of $100.00 per day plus a one-time $100.00 administrative fee should the property fail to come into compliance within 14-days after the date of this Hearing. On April 16, 2024, Lien/Order was mailed via USPS certified return receipt and regular mail. Code Officer Smith posted the property and the public notices board at City Hall with the Signed Lien/Order. Photos in file. On April 22, 2024, Property owner Mr. Richard Roberts called in and asked what needed to be done to bring the property into compliance. Mr. Roberts was advised by Code Officer Smith that he needed to cut the overgrown vegetation and remove the disabled vehicle from the property. On April 23, 2024, Mr. Roberts called in and spoke with Code Officer Smith and he asked when he had to have the property in compliance. He was advised by Code Officer Smith on April 24, 2024. On April 24, 2024, SOV/NOH mailed via USPS certified return receipt and regular mail for the May 14' Hearing. Mr. Ricardo Lane called into the office and Spoke with Code Officer Smith asking if we could give him till 10am tomorrow to get the vehicle move because he had to get a key made so he could move the vehicle. I advised him that would be fine. and I would be out in the morning to inspect the property. On April 25, 2024. Code Officer Smith inspected the property: still non-compliant, disabled vehicle remains: however. the overgrown vegetation was cut. Photos in file. Lien/Order recorded at the Okeechobee County Clerk of Court, File #2024004489, Page(s):1. Recorded Lien/Order mailed out via USPS certified return receipt. On April 30, 2024. Code Officer Smith inspected the property, in compliance, the Page 10 of 11 VIII. COMPLIED CASES CONTINUED B. Case No. 240219005; CONTINUED: disabled vehicle was removed from the property. Photos in file. Code Officer Smith posted the property and the public notices board at City Hall with the Notice to Appear. Photos in file. On May 1, 2024, Compliance Letter with fine total mailed out via USPS certified return receipt. The City has not received the notice nor the signature receipt card back as of the date of this hearing. On May 12, 2024, Mr. Roberts called into the office and spoke with Code Officer Smith and advised me that the truck had been removed from the property on the 25th of April. He was advised that the truck was still there when I inspected the property that day, so the Lien was recorded. He advised me that he had a Venmo receipt showing that the truck was towed that evening. I Code Officer Smith advised him that if he sent a copy to me via email that I could give him credit of compliance for the 26th of April. On May 13, 2024, Received the email from Mr. Roberts showing the receipt for the towing of the truck on the 26th of April. Photo in file. The fine total of$100.00 plus $100.00 administration fee for a grand total of$200.00. He was advised that a Compliance letter with the new total would be sent via certified mail. On June 4, 2024, a Compliance Letter with new fine total mailed out via USPS certified return receipt. The City recommends no action on this matter, but requests it be noted for the record that the property came into compliance on April 30, 2024, with an accrued lien balance of $100.00 plus $100.00 administration fee, totaling $200.00. RA- anything you would like to add Mr. Hyden GH- no sir RA- okay I will make a finding in this case of the City of Okeechobee v. Sam Lane do Richard Roberts Case No. 240219005, the respondents were charged with Chapter 30, Sections 30-41 Disabled vehicles, 30-43 Public nuisances, 30-44 General cleaning and beautification, for having an inoperable/unregistered vehicle on the property with what looks like someone living in the vehicle with trash and debris around the disabled vehicle and on the property, based on the testimony presented by the certified Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Smith and the exhibits presented in this case. I am examining the photos presented by the Code Enforcement Officer and there appears to be sufficient factual basis for the allegations and there appears to be a vehicle without a tag so there is factual basis for the allegations in this case and there is trash and debris in the photos also and even though the property did come into compliance they did accrue a lien of $100.00 plus a $100.00 administrative fee totaling $200.00. So, I will follow the city's recommendation on this matter that there will be no further action on this matter, but it will be noted for the record that the property was in violation until it came into compliance on April 30, 2024, with an accrued lien balance of$100.00 plus a $100.00 administrative fee, totaling $200.00. Anything else Mr. Smith AS- no sir IX. ADJOURN MEETING There being no further business to come before the Special Magistrate, the Hearing was adjourned at 7:04 P.M. BE ADVISED that should you intend to show any document, picture, video, or items (collectively, "materials")to the Special Magistrate in support or opposition to any item on the agenda, a copy of the materials must be provided to the Code Enforcement Secretary for the City's records. You will be required to sign a form certifying that all personal information has been redacted from the materials you wish to provide. ANY PERSON DECIDING TO APPEAL any decision made by the Special Magistrate with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need to ensure a verbatim record of the proceeding is made and the record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with disabilities needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the Code Enforcement Office in person or call 863-763-9795, Hearing Impaired: Florida Relay 7-1-1 no later than four business days prior to proceeding. Page 11 of 11