HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-07-2010
July 7, 2010 - 9:00 am
HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS
ROGER POITRAS ANNEX
2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA
PRESENT
Chairman.................................................................................................................Dr. Dale Ingersoll
Board Members............................................................................................... ........Ray Hofmann
.............................................................................................................................Ralph Fogg
.............................................................................................................................Wes Taylor
.............................................................................................................................Mitchell Williford
……………………………………………………………………………………………….Phillip Stickles
……………………………………………………………………………………………….Margaret Monahan
Board Attorney .....................................................................................................Jack Krieger
STAFF PRESENT
Assistant County Attorney .....................................................................................Heather Lueke
Building Supervisor ...............................................................................................Ken Arnold
Code Enforcement Supervisor ..............................................................................Dennis Bunt
Code Enforcement Officer ...................................................................................Melissa Brubaker
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Lynn Swartzel
Code Enforcement Officer ....................................................................................Danielle Williams
Board Secretary ...................................................................................................Debbie Isenhour
I. CALL TO ORDER
The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by Dr. Ingersoll.
II. PLEDGE TO THE FLAG
All those present rose to pledge allegiance to the flag.
III. ROLL CALL
The Board Secretary called the roll and everyone was present.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 2, 2010
Mr. Hofmann made a motion to accept the minutes of June 2, 2010 as presented
.
Mr. Fogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
V. SWEARING IN OF STAFF MEMBERS
Dennis Bunt, Ken Arnold, Melissa Brubaker, Lynn Swartzel, and Danielle Williams were sworn in.
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
Satisfaction of Lien Case No.
Laura J. Nicholson #57066
Partial Release of Lien Case No.
King’s Wrecker #37087
Request for Fine Reduction Hearing Case No.
Raul Macias #64356
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
The Chairman asked if there were any cases the Board wanted to discuss.
Mrs. Monahan noted that the Request for Fine Reduction has an attached letter from Mr. Bennett.
Mrs. Williams noted that was an error. The letter was from Mr. Macias.
The Chairman asked if Staff was ok with the fine reduction.
Mr. Bunt answered that Staff recommended that the fine reduction be heard next month.
Mr. Fogg made a motion to approve and accept the cases on the Consent Agenda as presented by staff.
Mr. Hoffman seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
VII. VIOLATION HEARING:
The following cases were removed, withdrawn or abated from the agenda:
Case No. Location of Violation Contractor/Owner/Violator/Name____________
64079 308 W. Arbor Ave., Port St. Lucie Dawn Matano
63883 1423 Winter Creek Rd., Palm City Angelo and Jeanette Pignataro
62865 1423 Winter Creek Rd., Palm City Watlee Construction Inc/Ryan N. Watley
63637 214 SE Camino St., Port St Lucie Larry A. Maloney
63148 214 SE Camino St., Port St. Lucie Riggs and Son Inc/Robert T. Riggs
63520 11915 S. Indian River Dr., Jensen Beach Gregory S. & Mary O. Jones (Tr)
65354 11915 S. Indian River Dr., Jensen Beach Hall-Sammons Inc/Douglas J. Sammons
65289 1322 White Oak Lane, Ft. Pierce Robert and Lori A. Kennedy
65084 2402 Royal Palm Dr., Ft. Pierce Emmanuel D. Villoch-Veintidos & Diane Villoch
VIOLATION CASES HEARD:
Case #13 was heard first on the agenda:
th
Case #65473, Location of violation, 406 N. 40 St., Fort, Pierce, Fl., Property Owner(S) Howard Jr. and Betty M.
Lurry. Howard Lurry, Jr. was sworn in by the Board Secretary.
Mrs. Swartzel submitted five photos. Three photos dated April 1, 2010 and two photos dated July 6, 2010. On
Officer Swartzel first inspection of April 1, 2010, she found the property in violation of Section 1-9-19, for having
outside storage and unserviceable vehicles. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of April 22, 2010.
She noted that she has had no contact with the property owner and as of July 6, 2010, the property still remains in
violation.
Mr. Lurry stated that he did not believe he was in violation because the vehicles had tags and insurances on
them, except the van, which he has up for sale. He noted that he did not want to get rid of the white Ford truck
because he had it the thirty-something years and he was trying to preserve it. He did not want to get rid of it.
The Chairman noted that the vehicles had to serviceable, which meant that the vehicles had to be drivable. He
also noted that he had outside storage.
Mr. Fogg stated that he wanted Mr. Lurry to show him what he had moved so far.
Mr. Lurry noted that he is waiting to move the trailer with the items to the dump. He stated that he will also try to
get the truck running.
Mrs. Monahan told Mr. Lurry that if he spoke with Officer Swartzel, she will tell him everything he needed to do.
Page 2 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65473 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the
following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of
staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by August 25, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed.
st
Please take notice that on the 1 Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am
or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given
compliance date.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #65418, Location of Violation, 6502 Ft. Pierce Blvd., Fort Pierce, Property owner(s), Thomas R. and Linda
M. Jenkins. Mr. Jenkins was sworn in by the Board Secretary.
Mrs. Williams submitted one photo dated November 3, 2009 and one photo dated July 6, 2010. She stated that
during her first inspection on November 3, 2009, she found the property in violation of Section 11.05.01, Building
and Sign Permits, for installing a wooden fence without a permit and Section 1-9-32(D), Public Nuisance for
having excessive overgrowth of grass and weeds. She issued a Notice of Violation letter on November 6, 2009
with a compliance date of November 20, 2009. She had contact with the property owner on November 17, 2009
and he requested more time to correct the violation. She gave him an extension until January 2, 2010. She
noted that after having no more contact with the property owner, she issued a Notice to Appear letter on June 26,
2010 and as of July 6, 2010; the property still remains in violation.
Mr. Jenkins stated that he was in violation. He noted that he did contact a Mr. Steve Henson and he had a money
order showing that he paid him, but the work was never done. He noted that he does not work from him anymore
and that the grass is being cut right now. He stated that he was not the one who put the fence on the property.
He claimed that it was put on the wrong property.
Mr. Bunt explained that Mr. Henson was hired for cutting the grass and not for obtaining the fence permit.
Mrs. Monahan asked how the fence was placed on the wrong property. She also asked if he paid for the fence.
Mr. Jenkins answered that he was not the one who paid for it.
The Chairman noted that he had the option to tear the fence down.
Mr. Jenkins stated that he would like to keep the fence.
Mr. Fogg noted that even though he lived in Maryland, he needed to think of the people living here. He stated
that he should think of contracting someone to keep the grass cut.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #64518 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the
following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of
staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by August 25, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed.
st
Please take notice that on the 1 Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am
or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given
compliance date.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
th
Case #65228, Location of violation, 2414 N. 49 St., Ft Pierce, Property owner(s), Bobby G. and Mary H.
McKelvin. Mr. McKelvin was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary.
The Chairman rescued himself from the case.
Mrs. Swartzel submitted two photos. One photo dated February 18, 2010 and one photo dated June 28, 2010.
She stated that during her first inspection on February 18, 2010 she found the property in violation of Section 1-9-
19 to repair or remove the unserviceable vehicle. She issued a letter and gave a compliance date of March 12,
Page 3 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
2010. She noted that she had no contact with the property owner and as of July 6, 2010, the property is still in
violation.
Mr. McKelvin agreed that he was in violation. He noted that the vehicle belongs to his son who is trying to restore
it, but he has lost his job. He stated that he is unable to help him because he is on a fixed income.
Mr. Stickles asked if the vehicle runs.
Mr. McKelvin answered in the affirmative.
Mrs. Swartzel noted that the tire on the vehicle is flat.
Mr. Stickles explained to Mr. McKelvin that if the tire is fixed and the vehicle could be moved back and forth, the
violation would be corrected.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65228 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the
following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of
staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by August 6, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed.
st
Please take notice that on the 1 Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am
or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given
compliance date.
Mr. Hoffman seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
The Chairman noted that the recording lady was not here today.
Mr. Bunt explained that she went out of town so she could not make the meeting.
The Hall was sounded and Mr. Stickles read the names and numbers of the cases of those not present
into the record:
Case No. Location of Violation Property Owner/Contractor Violator
65137 5910 S. US 1, Ft. Pierce SS South Fort Pierce LLC
65483 154 SE Lucero Dr., Port St. Lucie Troy A. & Martha W. Edwards
65472 1107 W. Joy Lane, Ft. Pierce Alejandro Calderon
65098 3307 Delaware Ave., Ft. Pierce Gregory Glafenhein
Mr. Williford made a motion in reference to the cases read into the record that the Code Enforcement
Board enter an Order of Finding against the violators finding the violators in default and if the violators do
not appear to contest the violation against him/her that the Board adopt the recommendation of staff as
set forth on the agenda.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
VIII FINE HEARING:
Case #65198, Location of Violation, 2708 Niagara Ave., Fort Pierce, Property Owner, C and S Realty Group LLLP
(Tr). No one was present to represent the property owner.
Mrs. Swartzel submitted two photos. One photo dated February 10, 2010 and one photo dated July 2, 2010. She
noted that the case was brought before the May 5, 2010 meeting and found in violation of Sections 1-9-32(D) for
having overgrowth. She stated that the case was found in default and the Board gave until June 4, 2010 to
correct the violation. She has had no contact with the property owner and as of July 6, 2010, the property still
remains in violation.
The Chairman asked if the property was in foreclosure.
Page 4 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
Mrs. Swartzel answered no. She stated that they owned a few properties.
Mrs. Monahan asked that since this is a duplex, would it be considered a business.
Mrs. Swartzel answered that it was not commercial but residential.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65198 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing the facts in the case, the testimony and report of staff that the
violation still exists and after considering the gravity of the violation, the actions if any taken by the
violator to correct the violation and any previous violation, we make the following determination: A fine
of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists, starting July 5, 2010 with the
maximum fine not to exceed $5,000.00. A cost of $125.00 shall be imposed as the cost of prosecuting the
case.
Mrs. Monahan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
VIII. REPEAT VIOLATION HEARING:
Case #65901, Location of Violation, 721 Solaz Ave., Port St. Lucie, Fl., Property Owner, Darlene Beadle. Paula
Gassman, 624 Coconut Ave., Port St. Lucie, the property owner’s daughter was sworn in by the Board’s
Secretary.
The Chairman asked Ms. Gassman if she had any ownership in the property.
Ms. Gassman answered no. She stated that her mother was in a nursing home and she was paying her own
finances. She noted that when she drove by the property yesterday, it was in compliance. She explained that her
mother had someone taking care of her property for years but she was in arrears with him.
Mrs. Brubaker noted that the property was originally brought before the Board on December 2009 for being in
violation of Section 1-9-32(D) for having overgrowth. She submitted two photos. One photo dated June 8, 2010
and one photo dated July 6, 2010. She noted that on June 8, 2010 she again found the property in violation of
Section 1-9-2(D), for having overgrowth. She found the property abated on July 6, 2010, which made the
property in violation for twenty-seven days. She noted that she has had contact with the property owner, who is
here today to explain what happened.
The Chairman asked Ms. Gassman if she would be on top of getting the grass cut.
Ms. Gassman answered that she would do the best she could, but she is not here all the time. She noted that
she could not promise more than that.
Mrs. Monahan asked if the fine amount would be thirteen thousand five hundred dollars for the twenty-seven days
the property was in violation at five hundred dollars per day.
Mr. Bunt noted that the fine is maxed out at five thousand dollars.
The Chairman noted that according to the law, there must be a competent party.
Mr. Bunt explained that Staff was not looking at fining the property but since it was repeated, they needed to be a
solution. He noted that someone just had to come by and cut the grass.
The Chairman asked Ms. Gassman for her personal guarantee that the grass would be cut.
Ms. Gassman answered that her mother had the gentleman employed until September and she would make sure
that he is paid to continue after that.
The Chairman asked if the Board fined the property, would that help her and her sister to have evidence that her
mother is not competent to manage the property.
Page 5 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
Ms. Gassman answered in the affirmative. She noted that her mother just paid her property taxes, which was in
arrears for two years. She stated that she hated to see her mother fined but she believed that it would help. She
asked if her mother was fined how she would be contacted.
The Chairman noted that the order would be sent to the address on record and since she is here today
representing her mother, he assumed that she had an interest in the property.
Ms. Gassman stated that she had an interest in her mother.
Ms. Lueke noted that if the property appraisal record’s address was incorrect, then she needed to update it
because that was where all notices would be sent.
The Chairman noted that she could get her mother’s attorney to get her to sign a form stating that all notices get
sent to him.
Mr. Fogg made a motion in reference to Case #65901 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the
violation previously committed has been repeated and after considering the gravity of the violation, the
actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations we make the
following determination: A fine of $250.00 per day shall be imposed for each day the violation exists
starting July 9, 2010, with a maximum fine not to exceed $5,000 and a cost of $125 shall be imposed as
the cost of prosecuting the case.
Mr. Stickles asked Mr. Fogg if he was not going to fine her.
The Chairman noted that this is a repeat hearing and there should not be a futuristic fine. He stated that the
repeat violation began the day that the officer went out.
Mr. Krieger advised the Board that they could impose a fine for a future date.
Mr. Stickles stated that the Board had imposed a flat fine in other cases. He asked Mr. Fogg how much he
wanted the fine to be.
Mr. Fogg answered he wanted the fine to be $250.00.
Mr. Stickles stated that he should amend the motion to a total fine of $250.00.
Mr. Fogg added that he wanted to impose the $125.00 to prosecute the case. He stated that he wanted to
impose the fine so that Ms. Gassman would have something to give to the attorney and for Staff’s time.
Mr. Stickles stated that he would second the second motion but not the first.
Mr. Stickles made a motion in reference to Case #65901 that the Code Enforcement Board make the
following determination: After hearing testimony, the facts in the case, and the report of staff that the
violation previously committed has been repeated and after considering the gravity of the violation, the
actions if any taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations we make the
following determination: A fine of $250.00 shall be imposed and a cost of $125 shall be imposed as the
cost of prosecuting the case.
Mr. Hofmann seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bunt advised the Board that Mr. Glafenhein from Case #65098 just walked in the door. He stated that it would
be up to the Board if they wanted to hear the case or leave it as a default.
Mr. Krieger advised the Board that they needed a motion to rescind the default findings for Case #65098.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion to rescind Case #65098 from the default hearing.
Mr. Stickles seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Case #65098, Location of Violation, 3307 Delaware Ave., Fort Pierce, Property Owner, Gregory Glafenhein.
Gregory Glafenhein was sworn in by the Board Secretary.
Page 6 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
Mrs. Williams submitted one photo dated March 18, 2010 taken by Officer Fowler and four photos dated July 6,
2010. She noted that on March 18, 2010, Officer Fowler inspected the property and found it in violation of Section
1-9-19, Abandoned Property, Unserviceable Vehicles, Etc for having outside storage. The notice of violation
letter was sent out on March 19, 2010 with a correction date of April 5, 2010. She noted that after getting no
compliance, she issued a notice to appear letter to appear before today’s board on June 15, 2010. Staff has had
no contact with the property owner and as of July 6, 2010, the property remains in violation.
The Chairman asked if the property was commercial.
Mr. Bunt answered that it was residential.
The Chairman noted that the property looks like a prison with the barbed wire fence going along the top of the
fence.
Mr. Glafenhein stated that he was in violation. He stated that it would take some time to clean the property up.
He noted that between forty-five to sixty days there would be a ninety percent improvement and everything would
be moved from the front to behind the fence.
The Chairman noted that everything had to be removed one hundred percent from the property.
Mr. Glafenhein stated that he could not give them a specific date of when the property would be cleaned.
Mrs. Monahan noted that he was already given one hundred and twenty days.
Mr. Glafenhein noted that if Staff drove by in thirty days, there would be a big improvement and in sixty days, he
could promise that it would be ninety percent clean.
The Chairman noted that this was not a negotiation and that Staff’s goal is one hundred percent completion.
Mr. Glafenhein noted that he is trying to sell his camper, boat and trailer by advertising it for a reasonable price.
Mr. Stickles asked Mr. Glafenhein were he received all these items from.
Mr. Glafenhein answered that there are scraps that people throw out in their garbage and people gives him stuff.
He noted that he is not trying to have yard sales because the county does not allow them.
Mrs. Williams stated to the Board that a neighbor would like to address them.
Karen Emerson, 3503 Fontaneda Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL was sworn in by the Board’s Secretary.
She noted that this has been going on for two years or longer and she is shocked that this has been allowed to go
on this long. She stated that she counted ten mattresses in the front yard last night and one is by the street this
morning. She noted that on any given day there are boats, pieces of boats, and pieces of trailers and every night
there are trucks that come and unload stuff. She stated that he is running a junk yard and she resents that this
has been allowed to go on in her neighborhood. She noted that she will get all her neighbors to come to the next
meeting because she is not happy. She stated that he should be cited weekly because the violation changes
daily.
Mr. Williford asked how big the property was.
Mrs. Williams answered that it was .97 acres.
Mr. Fogg asked Mrs. Williams if there are a lot of homes on this street.
Mrs. Williams answered in the affirmative. She also noted that it was across the street from John Carroll High
School.
Mr. Fogg asked if he ever appeared before the Board.
Mrs. Williams answered that he appeared for having too many boats.
Page 7 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
Mr. Bunt noted that he was also cited and fined for having too many yard sales.
Mrs. Emerson stated that the yard sales are going on weekly because they see the signs.
Mr. Fogg asked Mr. Glafenhein how long he lived at this location.
Mr. Glafenhein answered that he lived there for a year and a half.
Mrs. Monahan made a motion in reference to Case #65098 that the Code Enforcement Board makes the
following determination: After hearing the facts in this case, the testimony, and the recommendations of
staff with regard to the existence of a violation that we determine the violation in fact did occur and the
alleged violator committed the violation. An Order of Enforcement is warranted. If the Order of
Enforcement is not complied with by August 6, 2010 a fine of up to $250.00 per day may be imposed.
st
Please take notice that on the 1 Wednesday of the month after the date given for compliance, at 9:00 am
or soon thereafter, as may be heard, a Fine Hearing will be held if the violation is not abated by the given
compliance date.
Mr. Hoffman seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
X. FINE REDUCTION HEARING: None.
XI. REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION HEARING: None
XII. OTHER BUSINESS: Discussion of the recording of Code Liens.
Mr. Bunt noted that at the last meeting there was discussion about the prosecution cost. He stated that the
attorney’s office did the research and found that a lien for prosecution cost cannot be placed on a property. He
noted that it could be levied but not recorded.
The Chairman asked if that without an accompanied fine, a judgment of lien could not be placed on the property
for just the prosecution cost.
Ms. Lueke answered in the affirmative.
The Chairman asked how much time it took Staff to put a judgment against a property. He stated that he does
not know if he would spend one hundred and fifty dollars in order to collect one hundred and fifty dollars. He
wondered if it was worth stepping over two dollars to collect fifty cents. He asked Mr. Krieger how much time was
put in to collect one hundred and forty-five dollars.
Mr. Krieger advised the Board to look at the recommendation for a proposed order from Katherine Mackenzie-
Smith. He noted that when a fine is imposed, the cost of prosecution is attached to the lien. He stated that in the
situation where the violator abated the case before the fine hearing, according to Ms. Mackenzie-Smith, she
suggested that at the violation hearing the cost of prosecution could be assessed, but if it is abated, a lien just for
the prosecution cost cannot be recorded. He told the Board that if they looked at #3 in their motion of violation
hearing book, after the second paragraph they could say, “A prosecution cost of one hundred and twenty-five
dollars is hereby assessed.” He noted that the order would state that a prosecution cost has been assessed. He
stated that having a hundred and twenty-five dollars fine might encourage the violator to pay in order to get rid of
the whole case, but if they do not pay it, the Board does not have the authority to issue a lien and record a lien.
Mr. Fogg asked if the one and fifty dollars would just go away.
Mr. Krieger answered that it would be on record and Staff would know it was there. He asked Mr. Bunt what he
thoughts were on this.
Mr. Bunt answered that he believed some would pay if they believed they could abate it and just get away with a
hundred dollar fine and some would not. He noted that recouping some would be better than none.
Page 8 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
Mr. Stickles suggested that the motion should state that the prosecution cost would be imposed if not abated. He
noted that this would motivate the violator to correct the violation and not appear for a fine hearing.
Mr. Krieger suggested that Staff put the prosecution cost recommendation on the agenda under the violation
hearing.
Ms. Lueke stated that they would change the standard motion by adding a line stating that the prosecution cost is
whatever Staff says it is.
The Chairman stated that the cost would be an accumulative number from this date to the next.
Ms. Lueke noted that the motion would state that it would be up until this date.
Mr. Stickles noted that we had some cases where we gave them six months and Staff had to continue checking
on them.
Mr. Krieger explained that the idea of doing this is to get some type of money out of this. He noted that some
money would be better than getting none as long as it does not cause any problem. He stated that he does not
want to sound like he is advocating this, but Staff believes that by doing this addition dollars would be generated
The Chairman asked where the money goes. He also asked how much have Staff collected this month.
Mr. Bunt answered that it varies month to month.
Mrs. Williams stated that ten thousand one hundred and twenty-five dollars was collected a few weeks ago. She
believed that around fourteen thousand dollars was collected for the month.
The Chairman noted that there are some months where no money was collected.
Mr. Bunt stated that there is no easy way to collect the fine because there are some people who will not pay. He
noted that St. Lucie County does not do badly when it comes to collecting fines. A hundred and twenty-five
dollars does not seem like much but it will cover the inspection cost. He noted that he only has two and a half
officers.
Mr. Krieger stated that there are a lot of people who abate their violations and they are the ones who will pay the
fine. He noted that this would be a great opportunity.
The Board asked if they needed to make a motion.
Mr. Krieger answered that this would be a policy so a motion is not needed. He explained that the Board will deal
with each case individually as to whether they want to incur a cost. He noted that the motion would be to direct
Staff to prepare the necessary paperwork to include the cost of prosecution assessment at the time the violation
hearings are heard on a case by case basis.
Mr. Taylor made the motion.
Mr. Fogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Stickles asked what they would do in a default case.
Mr. Krieger answered that it would be whatever Staff recommended.
Mr. Stickles asked if there were any more discussions on collecting old fines.
The Chairman answered that it was just an idea and that Mrs. Mackenzie-Smith was going to look into it.
Mr. Bunt answered that Staff has looked into this. He noted that they looked to see what the City of Ft. Pierce
and the City of Port St. Lucie. The City of Port St. Lucie received some money from reducing the fine amount.
He gave the information to Robin Meyers to work on it. He noted that they would probably put into effect that for
anything old there will be a seventy-five to fifty to twenty-five percent reduction. He also is looking into different
Page 9 of 10
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD June 2, 2010
ordinances to have a collection agency. He noted that the City of Port St. Lucie uses a collection agency and the
City of Ft. Pierce does not.
The Chairman asked what the total was on the fine.
Mr. Bunt answered that it was just over a million. He believed that it was $1,115,000.
XIII. STAFF BUSINESS: None
XIV. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
ADJOURN:
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 a.m.
_____________________________ ______________________
Dr. Dale Ingersoll, Chairman Date
_____________________________ _______________________
Danielle Williams, Code Board Secretary Date
Page 10 of 10