civic record · cocoa, florida
Code Enforcement

Code Enforcement Special Meeting

Date
2024-04-18
Status
City minutes and machine transcript available
Source
CivicClerk event #906
Built from the City's minutes records — no AI-written text Briefing final

The City's record

What the City's record shows

Built only from the City's minutes (1213_CE_Sp_Minutes_04_18_2024.pdf). Page numbers are the minutes' own. Discussion is in the minutes' text; it is not summarised here.

Attendance (the roll call)

  • Listed present when the roll was taken: George Brown, Josue Otero, Michael Simpson, Melissa Acosta, Dik Muller
  • (Checked against the ballots and the printed roll lines; no independent membership list of this board is available to confirm that the roll is complete.)
  • Listed absent: Lloyd Roberts, Chris Davis, Sharri Scott
  • Also listed as present (staff and other roles): Augusto Gonzalez (Interim Code Enforcement Manager), Micheal Mack (Code Enforcement Officer), Michael Foiger (Code Enforcement Officer), Debra Babb-Nutcher (Board Attorney), Kristin Eick (City Attorney), Darla Crowl (Recording Secretary)

Adopted actions (1)

  • to approve to the workshop agenda of April 18, 2024 (moved by Simpson, seconded by Muller); CARRIED — the City's minutes, p. 1

Agenda (the City's wording)

No agenda for this meeting was found in the City records this site holds. That does not mean the City published none.

Transcript Partial transcript

Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard. It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's minutes do that (above). A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. No recording can be started from here.

Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.

[00:00:00] No voice detected
Go ahead.
[00:00:03] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:03–00:00:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:04] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:00:07] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
I started it, but...
[00:00:12] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:12–00:00:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:14] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Oh,
[00:00:14] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
wait. Wow, this is the high...
[00:00:19] No voice detected
You...
[00:00:20] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:20–00:00:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:25] No voice detected
I
[00:00:25] Speaker 3
need some oil on the wheels. Gee. You're kidding me.
[00:00:34] No voice detected
Oh.
[00:00:36] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:00:36–00:00:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:58] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:58–00:01:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:11] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:01:17] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:01:26] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:01:29] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:30] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yes, sir. Yes. Everybody.
[00:01:32] Speaker 3
Okay. I'd
[00:01:38] Attribution uncertain
like
[00:01:38] Speaker 3
to call the meeting to order.
[00:01:40] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:01:40–00:01:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:43] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:01:43–00:01:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:43] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:43] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
[00:01:51] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:01:54] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:54] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:54] Speaker 3
Okay. Yes. Code enforcement. Board workshop.
[00:02:00] Speaker 1
Yes,
[00:02:01] Speaker 4
sir.
[00:02:01] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:02:01–00:02:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:02:05] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:05] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:07] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:11] No voice detected
I
[00:02:12] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
pledge ‸ allegiance to
[00:02:13] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
the flag of the United States of America and
[00:02:16] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God,
[00:02:21] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
indivisible, with liberty and justice for
[00:02:24] No voice detected
all.
[00:02:29] Speaker 3
The roll call, please.
[00:02:34] Speaker 4
Lloyd Roberts, he is out of town for work. Mr. Brown?
[00:02:42] Speaker 3
Present.
[00:02:43] Speaker 4
Mr. Otero?
[00:02:43] Speaker 3
Present.
[00:02:45] Speaker 4
Sherry Scott, she's out of town for work. Michael Simpson?
[00:02:50] Speaker 5
Present.
[00:02:51] Speaker 4
Melissa Acosta? Present.
[00:02:53] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:53–00:02:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:02:55] Speaker 5
Present.
[00:02:57] Speaker 3
Okay. Will I have a swearing in of the officers, please?
[00:03:04] Speaker 2
Well, they won't be giving any testimony in the workshop. We might want to wait to swear them in during the board hearing.
[00:03:15] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay. All right. We need approval of the agenda ‸ in minutes
[00:03:23] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:23–00:03:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:31] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
I'll
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:03:31–00:03:33 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:03:33] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
take a motion, please? Second.
[00:03:36] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:36–00:03:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:40] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:40–00:03:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:41] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:03:44] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:03:45] Speaker 1
move that we accept the minutes as they are.
[00:03:48] Speaker 4
You're first.
[00:03:50] Speaker 3
Second.
[00:03:51] Speaker 5
Second.
[00:03:52] Speaker 3
Okay. All in favor, say aye.
[00:03:56] Speaker 4
Aye.
[00:03:57] Speaker 3
Aye. Okay. All in favor.
[00:04:00] Speaker 4
Mr. Mueller, were you second?
[00:04:02] Speaker 3
Yes.
[00:04:03] Speaker 4
Thank you.
[00:04:04] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
‸ Okay. We're going to go with item number one, code enforcement process and chapter 162, Florida statues.
[00:04:19] Speaker 2
Okay.
[00:04:26] Speaker 1
Are we recording? I should do it.
[00:04:30] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
‸ Okay. Okay. Let's go ahead and start the workshop.
[00:04:38] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:38–00:04:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:04:42] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:42–00:04:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:04:44] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
and she is assistant city attorney for the city of Coco. She will be speaking in the second half of the workshop. We'll keep this to just under two hours so we can start the board on time. This first slide shows you where you all get your authority. It's chapter 162, Florida statutes.
[00:05:06] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:06–00:05:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:10] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
And it's the intent of the act to promote, ‸ protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens.
[00:05:18] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:18–00:05:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:23] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
the health, safety, ‸ and
[00:05:25] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:25–00:05:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:27] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
And this process, this code enforcement board process, which is sometimes done through a magistrate, but Coco has chosen the code board process. It's supposed to be equitable. It's supposed to be expeditious and effective and inexpensive. So those are also things that we all need to keep in mind that these are the underlying purposes of why you're here. The process really begins with the code officers. The code officers are the ones who find violations or receive complaints about potential violations. One thing that was changed in recent time is that anonymous complaints cannot come before the board. You can't get a case that was initiated by an anonymous complaint. ‸ Anyone who calls code enforcement to complain about a potential violation has to give their name and contact information. Otherwise, we get our complaints from the officers doing their routine inspections through the city.
[00:06:46] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:46–00:06:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:49] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
If a violation
[00:06:51] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:51–00:06:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:55] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
what's called a notice of violation. That notice of violation will describe what the violation is, cite the city code. ‸ We want to make sure the proper code is cited. And ‸ the statute requires a reasonable time to correct the violation. So after the officer gives the homeowner or property owner a reasonable time to correct, the officer will go back to inspect. And if there is compliance, then generally the case is done. If there is not compliance, I know our officers continue to try to work with the property owner.
[00:07:37] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:37–00:07:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:43] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
effort to obtain compliance ‸ before they decide to put a case on the agenda.
[00:07:55] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:55–00:08:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:08:01] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
The standard violations are the ones that you see most. They're the first time the property owner has been issued any kind of notice of violation or first time for this particular violation. And they come before you and you are assessing whether they have committed the violation. And if so, how much time to give them to comply and what type of daily fine you choose to ‸ assess.
[00:08:36] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:36–00:08:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:08:36] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:08:36] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:08:39] Speaker 2
You also will sometimes see what's called a repeat violation. We don't see them very often, but they are out there. They have to be properly noticed ‸ as a repeat violation. A repeat violation occurs when this same person has to be the same person has committed the same violation, has to be the exact same violation within the past five years. It doesn't matter if it's on the same property. It could be on ‸ a completely different property that that person owns. If they have committed that same violation within the past five years, they can be issued a notice of a repeat violation.
[00:09:22] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:22–00:09:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:27] Speaker 2
That case can come right before you. And the unique thing about repeat violations. If you do find, if you agree that this is a repeat ‸ violation, that fine, whatever fine you decide is appropriate, starts to run from the date the officer first observed the repeat violation. So let's say that a violation of junk and debris was found three years ago on a particular property.
[00:09:57] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:57–00:10:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:04] Speaker 2
is a repeat violation. The notice of violation indicates it's a repeat violation comes before the board.
[00:10:10] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:10–00:10:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:16] Speaker 2
fine from the day that officer saw the violation again. Um, so depending on how long it takes to get before you, that fine could already be running. So that's something to keep in mind. The other distinction with repeat violations is that you can find up to $500 per day for how long the violation lasts. And if they come into compliance by the time it gets to a hearing, you can go ahead and enter an order for the number of days from the day the officer first saw the violation until the day it came into violation.
[00:10:53] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:53–00:10:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:11:00] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:00–00:11:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:11:01] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:11:01] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[00:11:07] Speaker 2
Uh, if a notice of violation is issued and the violation is corrected,
[00:11:13] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:13–00:11:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:11:19] Speaker 2
Often the officers, they feel like their hands are tied. They can't bring ‸ the case to the board because they're not in violation anymore.
[00:11:26] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:26–00:11:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:11:31] Speaker 2
the notice of violation, if the officers feel like this is something that is a recurring problem, they can bring that recurring problem to you. And even though that violator has already complied. Hey, I ‸ moved my cars. I'm, I'm in compliance. You can't find me. Florida statutes allows a case to come before you if it is a recurring violation. And we're talking about things like people parking on the lawn consistently. They get the notice of violation. They move their car. Two days later, the car's back on the, on the drive,
[00:12:11] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:11–00:12:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:13] Speaker 2
Officer comes by issues, a notice of violation. Again, they move the car. So things that are happening three, four times, that's an opportunity for the officers to bring a recurring violation to this board. I don't know that we've really seen one of those, um, here with this board. Another kind of violation. It's, it's a very distinct violation. It's called a serious threat violation. Um, we rarely use this process, but what this process allows if the officer believes something is very dangerous. And I like to, I like to look at it in terms of a tree's about to fall onto somebody's house, or there's an open pool, a swimming pool in an
[00:13:04] Attribution uncertain
area.
[00:13:04] Speaker 2
And
[00:13:05] Attribution uncertain
there's a neighborhood
[00:13:05] Speaker 2
where there's children and, uh, there, somebody could fall in and drown. Those could be quantified as a serious threat to the public. If there is a serious threat, the officer still gives them notice, but doesn't have to give them time to comply and can quickly bring the case to the code board where the code board can decide. Yes, we feel this is a serious threat. What's the consequence of that? That the consequence is if you find a serious threat, you can have the city. Fix it, or you can ask the city if they wish to fix that violation. And
[00:13:44] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:44–00:13:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:45] Speaker 2
especially in, in the area of swimming pools.
[00:13:48] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:48–00:13:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:52] Speaker 2
and they go
[00:13:53] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
head
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:13:53–00:13:53 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:13:53] Speaker 2
out there and they put up a temporary fence or ‸ they fix a gate, um,
[00:13:59] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:59–00:14:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:02] Speaker 2
And then
[00:14:03] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:03–00:14:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:08] Speaker 2
You can assess those charges to that property owner on top of whatever fine you would impose. Again, we don't do that process very often. It's a pretty unique process, not one that we want to do a whole lot. We would really only want to leave it to extremely serious, uh, cases that threaten the public.
[00:14:33] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:14:33–00:14:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:35] Speaker 6
Yes. Um, one thing also with regard to serious threat violations.
[00:14:40] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:14:40–00:14:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:43] Speaker 6
the code enforcement officers might bring something like that to you is a nuisance abatement case, right? ‸ And typically in those cases, they would find a nuisance exists and that allows them to go and abate the, the, the violation, meaning they can go correct it unless it's appealed. And essentially you would be acting in that capacity as an appellate body. Um, and so there's different ways or strategic ways that, um, the, the code, uh, officers might bring a case
[00:15:18] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:15:18–00:15:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:21] Speaker 6
a serious threat violation. It may have been brought as a nuisance. Yes. We,
[00:15:25] Speaker 2
we occasionally will get a nuisance abatement appeal before the board. And that's when staff has already tried to, uh, get something corrected or they did go ahead and get something corrected. Even a demolition of a house. Um, and then the, the property owner appeals to the code board. Again, we don't see those too often. All right. The hearing itself, all code board meetings are open to the public. They're all recorded. All of the testimony is under oath. Uh, respondent must be given proper notice of the hearing and a fair opportunity to be heard.
[00:16:05] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
For code enforcement hearings, they're called quasi-judicial hearings.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:16:05–00:16:10 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:16:11] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:16:11–00:16:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:16:13] Speaker 2
court hearing where rules of evidence apply. There are no established rules of evidence for code board hearings, but there's always due process, meaning that the person got noticed and the person is given an opportunity to be heard. Opportunity to be heard, what does that mean? Well, that means that they're allowed to speak. They don't get unreasonably cut off when they're trying to explain their case. They're allowed to present evidence. Sometimes they don't know how to do that. And sometimes they'll just have something on their phone, which I typically will allow them to pass their phones around so that you can see what they're talking about. It also means they have the right to have an attorney present with them. That's the opportunity to be heard. And we don't want to cut people off if they're providing relevant testimony and they're not repeating themselves over and over. The evidence that they're allowed to present can be documents, photographs. They can present their neighbor to testify. They can provide whatever evidence they think is necessary to state their case. But it has to be relevant and it cannot be repetitive. And the chair or the board attorney can reign people in. We ‸ should remember that the chair leads the meeting. So if the chair feels like something is just getting repetitive over and over and over, the chair can step in and say, I think this is a repetitive testimony. Or sometimes board council will make a comment that
[00:18:04] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:04–00:18:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:18:06] Speaker 2
We need to move on.
[00:18:09] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:09–00:18:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:18:14] Speaker 2
and your evidence has to be relevant. Hearsay, we all kind of know what hearsay is. Hearsay technically is an out of court statement made to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So it's in regular courtroom hearsay is generally not allowed unless there's an exception. In code enforcement or quasi judicial hearsay is generally allowed and you get hearsay testimony all the time. ‸ That's about all you get really is hearsay. And you get, it's okay to rely on hearsay evidence. It's best if you have corroborating evidence, like some pictures that go along with whatever the hearsay evidence is. And if there's any doubt, any question of if, if some hearsay evidence should be allowed, just ask, ask me, ask your board council and I can help with ‸ that. When the officer is giving generally how we do it is the officer goes first, the city presents its case.
[00:19:21] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:21–00:19:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:19:24] Speaker 2
The city has the burden of proof on every case presented to you with the exception of lien reductions. The burden of proof in it's, it's kind of like a civil matter. It's, it's slightly more likely than not that a violation occurred. So you are the judge of whether the code enforcement officers have proven their case, have met their burden of proof. The officers testimony should describe the violation.
[00:20:00] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:00–00:20:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:03] Speaker 2
copy of the actual code text
[00:20:07] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:20:07–00:20:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:08] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:20:08] Attribution uncertain
So
[00:20:08] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
that you know what law we're talking about. It's their obligation to provide you whatever kind of evidence. And generally it's photographic evidence of the violation. And I like to have the code officers do kind of a running commentary while they're presenting the photographs. So they can explain this is showing the broken windows. This is showing the junk car in the back so that you don't have to, you know, look at the photo and try to figure out what it is you're seeing. It's best if the officers can tell you this is a photograph of a junk car in the back.
[00:20:49] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:49–00:20:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:52] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
And I would encourage them to be more proactive in giving a narrative instead of just showing pictures. Uh, another, uh, problem that I see sometimes is the pictures are just being shown and a board member will go ahead and make a motion
[00:21:09] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:09–00:21:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:11] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
have, have gone ‸ up.
[00:21:13] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:13–00:21:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:17] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
there ‸ and viewed by you before you make a motion. So Florida law requires that the board members make a decision based only on the evidence presented only on the evidence presented.
[00:21:37] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:37–00:21:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:42] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
the property or the property owner. Um, you should not consider any outside information that you may or may not have heard that, uh, the reason is you might be seen as biased or you're, um, prejudging somebody before all the evidence is in.
[00:22:06] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:22:06–00:22:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:08] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:22:13] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:22:14] Speaker 2
of the officer of the property owner, a tenant or any relevant witness. Um, again, make sure you've carefully reviewed the photos and heard the testimony of the officer and any witnesses. Um,
[00:22:29] Attribution uncertain
then
[00:22:29] Speaker 2
after all the evidence is in, um, you make your motion. Um,
[00:22:35] Attribution uncertain
you
[00:22:35] Speaker 2
state your factual findings. Which we don't always do here, but recent case law has suggested you need to do a better job of putting facts behind your motions. Um, I moved to find violation because that grass is. 10 feet tall, or, you know, put some kind of facts in there so that we can make a record.
[00:23:03] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:03–00:23:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:07] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:23:07] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:23:07] Speaker 2
these are the facts that went into that ‸ decision.
[00:23:11] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:11–00:23:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:19] Speaker 2
forget that is just a recommendation. Um, you are not obliged to follow the recommendations of the code officers. That is just their recommendation. And
[00:23:30] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:30–00:23:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:38] Speaker 2
And that's based on some recent case law suggesting that there's a lack of due process. If you just lump all of one fine on all the violations, then that doesn't give the opportunity for the person to take away at the violations to reduce the running fine.
[00:23:56] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:56–00:24:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:00] Speaker 2
that each violation has a particular fine attributed to it. Uh, when you are proposing a fine in your motion, the Florida statutes gives you three factors that you must consider the gravity of the violation. How serious is this? Is this an open pool in a neighborhood full of children? That's pretty grave. That is serious. Is it the grass is kind of high? That's probably not quite as serious unless we're harboring rats and snakes and nasty things.
[00:24:34] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:34–00:24:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:39] Speaker 2
violation and staff should let you know, has this been a cooperative owner? Uh, or have they been ignoring them? Um, that's something that you can take into consideration. If they're very cooperative, then take that into consideration into in assessing your fine. The third criteria, any previous violations,
[00:24:59] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:59–00:25:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:04] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:25:04] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:25:05] Speaker 2
property owner has had any previous violations in the past. Uh,
[00:25:12] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:12–00:25:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:18] Speaker 2
If it's a repeat violation, $500 per day is the maximum fine. And when there is something, uh, irreparable or irreversible, you can assess a fine up to $5,000 per violation. It's not a daily fine. It's just per violation. Um, for irreparable violations, I ‸ typically look at somebody cuts down a tree without a permit. They weren't allowed to, to do that, um, that you can't fix. Uh, ‸ toppled tree. So that is kind of, uh, the kind of irreparable violation. We often look at. Again, you don't see those very often. After you've made your, your motion, then the vote. Um, ‸ the findings shall be by motion approved by a majority of those board members present and voting at least four members of a seven member board must vote in order for the action to be official. The chairperson is a voting member and sir Roberts is not here for me to remind him that he has to vote. Uh, your, your vote should be audible so that Darla can, uh, can acknowledge your vote.
[00:26:39] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:39–00:26:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:26:47] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:47–00:26:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:26:49] Speaker 2
To me that just adds a lot of extra time.
[00:26:53] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:53–00:26:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:26:58] Speaker 2
enough so that Darla can pick up who's, who's voting, then we should stick with that method. Okay. Okay. So in, in your typical case, you're hearing, this is
[00:27:15] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:27:15–00:27:15 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:27:15] Speaker 2
first time that you're hearing this particular case. You give the ‸ person 10 days to come into compliance or a $50 per day fine will begin to run. The code officer goes out there after 10 days to determine if it's coming to compliance. If it hasn't come into compliance, the code officer will bring that case back to you. And we call those compliance hearings. Sometimes they're also called Massey hearing.
[00:27:44] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:44–00:27:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:49] Speaker 2
or something to, um, to assess whether they complied. So if there is compliance within the date set forth in your order, the case generally doesn't come back before you. You don't even see the case and generally staff will close that particular clip case. If the owner does not bring the property into compliance by the date set forth in the order, the case will come back to you. And as we all know, all you have to do is figure out, did they comply? It is not the time to rehash whether a violation ever existed. It is only whether they complied and the, the officer should be bringing forth evidence of very recent photos ‸ so that you can see, um, the recent conditions of the property. And it's the property owners, um, right to tell you, Hey, I think I did comply. And these are all the reasons why I think I did come into compliance. Then
[00:28:53] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:53–00:28:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:57] Speaker 2
there was compliance or not compliance. If you find there was not compliance, um, there is an order imposing a fine. And once that order gets recorded, that becomes a lien on that person's property and that lien will stay there until full compliance is achieved with the, with the, um, order. The property owner has 30 days to appeal and that appeal goes straight to circuit court. Okay.
[00:29:32] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:32–00:29:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:29:37] Speaker 2
Um, which is allowed.
[00:29:40] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:40–00:29:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:29:44] Speaker 2
It's, it's only, only very lightly addressed that you can consider a reduction of the
[00:29:51] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
lean,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:29:51–00:29:52 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:29:52] Speaker 2
but
[00:29:52] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:52–00:29:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:29:58] Speaker 2
say. Okay. So under the codes for city of cocoa, the code board gives a recommendation, uh, upon an application for lien reduction. The difference with lien reductions,
[00:30:10] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:10–00:30:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:15] Speaker 2
The person has to fill out the application. They have to provide the relevant evidence. They have to pay the ‸ recording fees and, um, that they're the ones who initiate. Uh,
[00:30:29] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:29–00:30:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:34] Speaker 2
that was their burden to come and put forth their case to explain why the lien should be reduced.
[00:30:41] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:41–00:30:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:46] Speaker 2
Uh, there are factors that you shall consider on a lien reduction application. You have to consider the gravity of the violation. Again, um, you look at how long it took that person to bring the property into compliance. Um, the accrued amount of the code enforcement fine.
[00:31:08] Attribution uncertain
Um,
[00:31:10] Speaker 2
why, why do we want to know that? I, I suspect that if it's a, you know, $200,000 fine on a house that's worth $50,000. That's something that the board would want to take into consideration that the, the fine itself has far exceeded the value of the property. Uh, any previous or subsequent code violations? That's very relevant. You want to know is this, is this a pattern? Is this somebody who's constantly violating codes? Um, and then just wants to come and, and reduce one of the liens. Uh, it's their burden to show up. There's some financial hardship to them to, to pay the fines. And you can consider any other mitigating circumstances. Have they had a lot of health issues? Has, has there been a death in the family?
[00:31:59] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:59–00:32:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:32:04] Speaker 2
even the ones who committed the violations and they didn't even own the property at the time the violations occurred. In fact, you see this a lot. Uh, you'll see somebody who either wants to buy the property or has already bought the property and, um, realizes that there's these liens. And then once, uh, you know, they fix it up and then they want you to drastically reduce the lien. Um, that's understandable something to keep in mind. A lot of times ‸ a title work will reveal what the liens are.
[00:32:38] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:38–00:32:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:32:45] Speaker 2
for a person who buys a property with liens on it to come before you to say, I had no idea there were liens on the property because a title search would have revealed the liens on the property. Sometimes people choose to go ahead and buy a piece of property with the liens on it and they'll set money aside and escrow to pay those liens. Um, so that's something that you may want to ask about as well when somebody is, is a new owner.
[00:33:13] Speaker 4
But those are the criteria
[00:33:15] Speaker 2
and then, uh, you give the recommendation. Now there is something I want to comment on the staff's recommendation staff ‸ will generally give you a sheet, a breakdown of costs sheet and we'll say, okay, you know,
[00:33:31] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:31–00:33:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:33] Speaker 2
We did this number of mailings. Um, the,
[00:33:36] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:33:36–00:33:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:39] Speaker 2
That is not something that you have to say, oh, well, we
[00:33:43] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:33:43–00:33:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:47] Speaker 2
any of the criteria into consideration. If all you're going to do is enter an order, a recommendation for staff costs. So I don't think that it's a good idea to only look at what staff's costs are and agree to recommend a reduction to staff costs because it doesn't take those factors into consideration. Okay, I have given you all, um, a sheet that has sample motions. Probably should have given you one of these a while ago, but I know we have a lot of new people and I'm hoping that this is helpful for some of you who feel a little uncomfortable making a motion.
[00:34:40] No voice detected
Um,
[00:34:41] Speaker 2
the easiest way to start a motion is to say,
[00:34:43] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:43–00:34:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:46] Speaker 2
That is always a great way to start, but here's this little cheat sheet here. Um, in case you'd like the help in determining how to start your motion for your standard case, when
[00:34:59] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
somebody's
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:34:59–00:35:00 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:35:00] Speaker 2
coming before you for an initial hearing and you find that they're in violation,
[00:35:05] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:05–00:35:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:35:10] Speaker 2
incorporated into the order. I move to find respondent in this case in violation of city code.
[00:35:15] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:15–00:35:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:35:21] Speaker 2
or the ones as charged. And you can say respondent shall correct the violation.
[00:35:27] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:27–00:35:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:35:31] Speaker 2
order. Be sure that date doesn't fall on a weekend.
[00:35:34] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:34–00:35:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:35:41] Speaker 2
and daily fine may be imposed for each violation as follows. And then you cite the violation and then cite the fine amount that you wish to, to have. I would appreciate it if you would say that you have considered the factors that are in the statute gravity of the violation actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and any previous violations. Of course, to do that, you have to have that information presented to you. So hopefully staff will, will, um, make sure that they can cite those factors to you when they're giving their presentation. Even the gravity of ‸ the violation stuff, they're the ones who are out there. They can see ‸ how bad it is. So they, they can be the ones to tell you that this situation is really bad.
[00:36:29] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:29–00:36:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:36:34] Speaker 2
If you've heard all the testimony and you just think, sorry, these officers just didn't cut it on this one. Uh, we don't see the violation. I moved to find that respondent is not in violation. And then the case is closed. That's, it's as simple as that.
[00:36:50] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:50–00:36:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:36:55] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:36:55] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:37:00] Speaker 2
A standing order is when they were in violation. And they've corrected it. So there's no fine, but staff wants you to go ahead and establish that a violation did occur. And why would that be?
[00:37:16] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:37:16–00:37:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:37:19] Speaker 2
violator. So then the fine will start to run once the code officer sees that happen again. So. They can bring a case to you if they didn't comply by the time they set it in their notice of violation.
[00:37:36] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:36–00:37:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:37:39] Speaker 2
Staff can still bring that to you and ask you to enter what, what we always call a no fine standing order. You're not assessing a fine, but you're finding that they were in violation. Same can be done on recurring violations. That's number four, a repeat violation.
[00:37:59] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:59–00:38:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:03] Speaker 2
And by the time it gets to you, they've complied. So number five is, is how you might want to read that one or they can be a repeat violation and the fine is still going. They have not complied.
[00:38:16] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:16–00:38:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:21] Speaker 2
Uh, sometimes we, we think that a case is has got too many issues and there's, uh, other things that need to be resolved before you can make a decision and you want to continue the case. I
[00:38:34] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
move
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:38:34–00:38:34 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:38:34] Speaker 2
to continue the case and you can put to the next available meeting or you can, if ‸ you think it's something that'll take six months, then I move to continue the case. Six months. Um, it's as simple as that. When it comes to the compliance hearing, you know, that's that second hearing when it comes to the compliance hearing. It's pretty simple.
[00:38:59] Attribution uncertain
If
[00:38:59] Speaker 2
they didn't come into compliance, I
[00:39:01] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
move
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:39:01–00:39:01 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:39:02] Speaker 2
to find that respondent did not comply with the code boards previous order and the
[00:39:06] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:39:06–00:39:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:39:06] Speaker 2
be imposed. Pretty simple. If the, if the violator. Did not comply by the date you said they needed to comply, but they have complied before the hearing. You can address that as well where I say, note the violation has since complied on blank date and therefore a fine in the amount of whatever has accrued.
[00:39:32] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:32–00:39:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:39:37] Speaker 2
Um,
[00:39:38] Attribution uncertain
so you would use for,
[00:39:38] Speaker 2
uh, reduction of the lean.
[00:39:41] Attribution uncertain
I
[00:39:41] Speaker 2
put some suggested language in there for when you are recommending, uh,
[00:39:46] Attribution uncertain
a
[00:39:46] Speaker 2
reduction of the lean.
[00:39:47] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:47–00:39:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:39:53] Speaker 2
when something is very serious and you find them in violation. Here's the language that you would use if you want to have the city notified and ask the city to fix, um, fix the violation.
[00:40:07] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:07–00:40:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:09] Speaker 2
They still have the, the right to say, no, we don't want to spend that kind of money, but at least you're given, giving the city the authorization to
[00:40:17] Attribution uncertain
the violation.
[00:40:17] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:17–00:40:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:17] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:40:17] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:40:20] Speaker 2
All right. Um, I'm opening it up to questions. ‸ Briefly. And then if you don't have questions, I will turn it over to Kristen. There any questions so far?
[00:40:35] Speaker 7
I have one. Some of the information you gave us, is that going to be sent to us over like email?
[00:40:40] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
We can do that. I can.
[00:40:42] Attribution uncertain
The
[00:40:42] Speaker 7
stuff that you were putting on the.
[00:40:43] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
Mm hmm.
[00:40:44] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:44–00:40:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:46] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Um, yeah, I have that in a, in a PDF format and then I,
[00:40:51] Attribution uncertain
oh,
[00:40:53] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Darla has that and she can send that to you.
[00:40:57] Speaker 3
That's fine for somebody who's got a computer.
[00:41:00] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:00–00:41:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:01] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:41:01] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:41:03] Speaker 2
I, we can give you a hard copy at the next meeting. How's that if you'd rather.
[00:41:10] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:41:10–00:41:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:14] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
I do have a place that a friend of mine has got an email if I had to send it there, but it could be neglected. I don't look at it all the time. Okay. I'm just an old dude that don't use computers.
[00:41:31] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:31–00:41:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:33] Speaker 4
I'm sorry. Um, for a repeat lean reduction.
[00:41:38] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:38–00:41:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:43] Speaker 4
repeats?
[00:41:44] Speaker 2
I think the code addresses the number of times you can do a lean reduction.
[00:42:06] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:06–00:42:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:07] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:42:12] Speaker 2
Under
[00:42:13] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:13–00:42:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:14] Speaker 1
don't have
[00:42:14] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
the amnesty program. It doesn't look like your code addresses that type of situation.
[00:42:21] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
‸ Yeah,
[00:42:22] Speaker 2
so that's something that you would consider, the board would consider with past violations. If there's a number of past or subsequent violations, that's something the board must take into consideration in granting or denying. Again, you can deny a lien reduction. Nothing nothing says you have to give a lien reduction. Say this is the 20th time this person has been before you or and they constantly ask for lien reductions. You can deny it or recommend denial.
[00:42:57] Speaker 8
that's a question.
[00:42:59] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah.
[00:42:59] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Is there um a limit on the pictures that can be taken by the code enforcement?
[00:43:08] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:08–00:43:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:43:14] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice
sometimes I'll see a
[00:43:16] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:16–00:43:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:43:17] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Are they not allowed to go on the property or? oh you're not. Well,
[00:43:21] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
they can't trespass. Okay,
[00:43:23] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
trespass. Okay.
[00:43:23] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
‸ they can only go on the property if they get consent from the owner or or if it's a tenant situation, the tenant can give consent. Okay,
[00:43:32] Speaker 1
they
[00:43:33] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
can go to the next door neighbor and ask the neighbor permission. um and if it's easy to look over the fence, you can't go to any dramatic measures to look over the fence. But if it's if you can see the violation from the neighbor's backyard,
[00:43:49] Speaker 4
that's
[00:43:49] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
authorized. That's fine. But ordinarily, no, they are not permitted to trespass. Okay. Without consent. I
[00:43:58] Speaker 3
have a question. Yes. What's the chances of this board being sued because of the fines? In other words, this person gets zero fine.
[00:44:11] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:11–00:44:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:44:16] Speaker 3
And the people say, well, this is unfair because they did this for this person and this for that person. And the fines are not
[00:44:25] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:25–00:44:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:44:28] Speaker 3
You could
[00:44:29] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:29–00:44:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:44:33] Speaker 3
a big spread there of a fine. Right. For something for something that smells or looks bad or unsafe. I mean, well,
[00:44:42] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
the the way to deal with that is to make sure you put in the record when you're assessing the fines why you're choosing that fine amount. that's That's why we have those factors, the gravity of the violation, the time it took, uh any prior or subsequent violations. So if you can give an explanation when you're assessing a fine, that's the best way to prevent the city from being sued. And the city
[00:45:06] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:06–00:45:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:45:09] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:45:12] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:45:13] Speaker 2
because the code board is is not a entity in and of itself to be sued, but the city would be the one to be sued.
[00:45:23] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:45:23–00:45:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:45:24] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:45:27] Speaker 2
but
[00:45:27] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:45:27–00:45:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:45:28] Speaker 2
it's really the city. So if there's damages, then the city's insurance would cover it and no board member would have any personal liability um
[00:45:38] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:38–00:45:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:45:44] Speaker 2
where it's substantially a different fine for one piece of property or one property owner versus what you always do for everyone else, then then somebody might raise, well, it's because I'm you know part of some protected group or i'm you know I'm, I don't know,
[00:46:04] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:04–00:46:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:46:07] Speaker 2
um if If they raise some kind of issue that can't be explained by the evidence that was presented, then, you know, the city could be sued. But it's very, very, very rare um when that happens because it's, it's not typical where there's such a huge ‸ variation in the fines. I
[00:46:31] Speaker 3
have one other question. When we vote and there's some nays and there's some yeas, I would like to, if I'm a nay, I would like to have my name put down as brown nay. If we're all the same, name then that's, that's the general vote. We don't have to have individual names. But I want to be noted why I say this. So if they go to the records, I i want a record of how I voted and why. Well,
[00:47:09] Speaker 2
I believe that the minutes show
[00:47:11] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:47:11–00:47:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:13] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:47:15] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:47:17] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
be shown. That can be shown. I would like
[00:47:19] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
to have it shown, please.
[00:47:21] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:21–00:47:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:24] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:47:25] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
‸ Well, the, you know, that, it does, it does get recorded. So there's always a way to know how a person voted, even if it doesn't always show up in the minutes who voted how. um That's a good point because sometimes we can't tell who's saying yay or nay. And in those cases, I will sometimes ask to do a roll call um so we can establish who is saying yay and who is saying
[00:47:55] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:47:55–00:47:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:55] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:47:58] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
If it's a board that's all. Right. Right. We don't have to go through all that.
[00:48:02] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I agree. Yep. Yep. Anything else before I turn it
[00:48:08] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:48:08–00:48:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:08] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:48:11] Speaker 6
so I mean, there's no reason not to put the names next to um your vote in the minutes.
[00:48:18] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:18–00:48:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:22] Speaker 6
Yep. Yep. ‸ I agree.
[00:48:24] Speaker 2
Anything else from me? christine that's good thank
[00:48:31] Speaker 7
you Thank
[00:48:33] Speaker 5
you.
[00:48:33] Attribution uncertain
thank you
[00:48:33] Speaker 5
very much. thanks
[00:48:34] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
for You did a very good job.
[00:48:35] Speaker 2
thanks for your attention
[00:48:40] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:40–00:48:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:45] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:48:49] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:48:49] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:48:56] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:49:02] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
what's the pleasure of the board We're taking a break.
[00:49:07] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I guess
[00:49:07] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
what
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:49:07–00:49:08 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:49:08] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
do you want to go? 15 minutes? 15 minute break? All right. Five minutes? Five minutes.
[00:49:14] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:49:14–00:49:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:15] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:15] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:49:18] Speaker 3
minute break, please. We'll be back in five minutes.
[00:49:23] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:49:23–00:49:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:24] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:24] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:49:24] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:24] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:49:26] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:26] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:26] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:26] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:26] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:26] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:26] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:49:26] No voice detected
Before
[00:49:26] Speaker 3
you talk about that, ‸ last few years It's not so
[00:49:34] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:49:34–00:49:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:36] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:49:36] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:49:37] Speaker 3
an active person.
[00:49:38] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:49:38–00:49:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:41] Speaker 3
I work.
[00:49:41] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:49:41–00:49:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:41] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:49:43] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
that's not good ‸ You
[00:49:44] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
don't have the ability. You miss it, believe me. I'm sure of that. Because of my age, I lost a lot of my leg muscle. Now,
[00:49:53] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:49:53–00:49:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:57] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
enough. This one I can get up. Yeah,
[00:49:58] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
but when you're parked
[00:50:00] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:50:00–00:50:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:01] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:50:02] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
off. I'm not like I used to be where I could jump up because I work on cars and everything else. And when you get underneath cars, you gotta push yourself up and move yourself around.
[00:50:13] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yep. can't win for losing. And I am going to stand up. Well, that's good.
[00:50:20] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:20–00:50:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:23] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:50:27] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:50:28] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:50:30] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
help. I
[00:50:31] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
i mean ‸ exercise three days a week. Yeah,
[00:50:35] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
where do you go to a gym? ‸ yeah,
[00:50:38] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:50:38–00:50:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:40] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:50:40] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:50:40] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
o'clock in the morning. well
[00:50:42] Speaker 3
i'd
[00:50:42] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
go over there for
[00:50:43] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
the wrong reason. See, I'd be looking for some sweethearts.
[00:50:46] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
oh well. That's different.
[00:50:49] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:49–00:50:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:51] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
See, I'd
[00:50:52] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
be cheating, you know. But I got an exercise bike, so. oh
[00:50:57] Speaker 5
that works.
[00:50:57] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah, works for me.
[00:51:00] Speaker 5
What are you doing, young
[00:51:01] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:01–00:51:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:01] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:51:06] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:51:08] Speaker 7
‸ The lady ‸ was just talking. What was her last name? You guys know her last name? Deborah?
[00:51:14] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:14–00:51:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:14] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:51:16] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:51:17] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:51:18] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:51:20] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:51:22] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:51:27] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:51:27–00:51:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:32] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:51:35] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:51:37] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:51:41] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:51:41] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:51:45] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:51:49] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:51:51] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:51–00:51:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:51] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:51:54] Speaker 7
her name. It's not like, hey lady.
[00:51:58] Speaker 5
Well, you don't have to say,
[00:51:59] Attribution uncertain
hey
[00:51:59] Speaker 5
lady, just say,
[00:52:00] Speaker 7
yo. Yo. Hey, ‸ you at the end.
[00:52:06] Speaker 5
Oh, boy. What do you mean I'm going to get slapped?
[00:52:15] Speaker 3
Are you retired?
[00:52:18] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:52:18–00:52:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:19] Speaker 3
What do you do?
[00:52:21] Speaker 5
I design and build custom homes.
[00:52:24] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Nice. Yeah. Where are you doing some now?
[00:52:27] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
I'm doing one on Indian River Drive.
[00:52:29] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:52:29–00:52:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:32] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Wow, nice
[00:52:33] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
stuff, huh?
[00:52:34] Speaker 5
Yeah.
[00:52:34] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:34–00:52:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:38] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Well, I
[00:52:39] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
sure wish nobody would.
[00:52:40] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah,
[00:52:41] Attribution uncertain
I
[00:52:41] Speaker 3
know, but that's what they're doing for the land.
[00:52:43] No voice detected
I
[00:52:43] Speaker 5
hear you.
[00:52:44] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
Yeah, they're buying that land up, especially
[00:52:46] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:52:46–00:52:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:49] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Going to Rockledge. Boy, they took on a lot of nice old homes.
[00:52:55] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:55–00:53:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:57] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:52:57] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:53:00] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:00] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:12]
[00:53:13] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:53:14] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
[00:53:23] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:53:24] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:24] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:53:26] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:26] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:53:27] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:53:29] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:53:30] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:31] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
[00:53:38] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:38] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:39] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:39] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:53:40] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:40] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:40] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:40] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:53:44] Speaker 3
You can't sit inside.
[00:53:46] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:53:46–00:53:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:53:49] No voice detected
Higher.
[00:53:49] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Oh,
[00:53:50] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
good. But they don't want to sit inside.
[00:53:52] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Well, they don't. Yeah.
[00:53:54] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
Because I was going to go to them. I haven't been there in years.
[00:53:58] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:58–00:54:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:00] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
You know what I used to like. And there was one up in the corner and it didn't last. But it's okay.
[00:54:06] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:54:06–00:54:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:12] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[00:54:18] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:54:18–00:54:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:19] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:54:19] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
[00:54:28] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:54:28] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:54:32] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
Kentucky
[00:54:32] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:54:32–00:54:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:39] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:54:40] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:54:43] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:54:44] Speaker 8
All right.
[00:54:45] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
There we go. Okay. We're going to call the meeting back to order.
[00:54:49] No voice detected
Yeah.
[00:54:50] Speaker 3
Okay. We'll call the meeting back to order.
[00:54:51] Attribution uncertain
We'll call the meeting back to order
[00:54:51] Speaker 3
on the city of Cocoa code enforcement board, please. Okay.
[00:54:59] Speaker 6
All right.
[00:55:02] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:02–00:55:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:04] Speaker 6
I am the assistant city attorney for Cocoa. Sometimes, occasionally I'll fill in for Deborah. She's not available to attend your meetings. Typically, I also cover the planning and zoning board meetings and the board of adjustment meetings. So, I regularly attend those meetings. And so, as we were thinking about doing this training, Deborah asked that I come and cover in a little bit more detail some of the things about quasi judicial procedures.
[00:55:40] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:40–00:55:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:42] Speaker 6
detail. Those, like we've talked about before in the first half, apply to code board and also apply to our other boards that we have.
[00:55:54] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:54–00:55:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:56] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:55:56] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:56–00:55:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:56] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:55:58] Speaker 6
And I'll talk about some of the just more general laws that apply to the code boards such as sunshine law, you know, public records, code of ethics, those types of things. So, that's the second half of the training here. So, okay, I just starting with the quasi judicial procedure. So, as Deborah already started talking about, you know, at a really high level, if I were to describe what a quasi judicial procedure is, it would be a hearing where you would expect the person deciding or the board deciding on that case to basically behave like a judge, right? They are not necessarily subject to all the strict rules that a judge would be subject to, but you would expect to be treated generally in that way. So, the definition that's usually used in Florida law is that a
[00:57:06] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:57:06–00:57:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:57:07] Speaker 6
decision has an impact on a limited number of individuals. Or in the case of like a land use decision, property owners and are contingent on the facts that are adduced at the hearing and where the decision can be functionally viewed as policy application rather than policy. So, what does that mean? So, what
[00:57:33] Attribution uncertain
does that mean?
[00:57:33] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:57:33–00:57:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:57:33] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
[00:57:38] Speaker 6
New laws about parking on the lawn or about, you know, any number of things that would be policy setting. That's the job of the city council.
[00:57:49] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:57:49–00:57:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:57:53] Speaker 6
a judicial capacity. How you are behaving in these hearings is in a quasi judicial capacity.
[00:58:00] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:00–00:58:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:58:05] Speaker 6
that come before the city that are quasi judicial in nature. Of course, code enforcement is one of them.
[00:58:12] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:12–00:58:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:58:13] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:14]
[00:58:27] Speaker 6
Right. That was a decision by the city council to establish for a limited period of time, a process to reduce code code liens. And there was a formula established, um, and, and that window was open again for, for a limited period of time.
[00:58:47] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:47–00:58:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:58:54] Speaker 6
If you're in a quasi judicial hearing setting, um, any decision that you make would be reviewed by, uh, for example, a circuit court or any reviewing appellate court for three different things. Have you, have you met these three different criteria? Those are one, have you afforded procedural due process? We've already talked about, uh, procedural due process a little bit in the last, uh, hour, but I'm going to talk about it a little bit as well. Have you observed essential requirements of law and does the, is the decision based on competent and substantial evidence? So I'm going to touch a little bit on each of those three, um, aspects of a quasi judicial hearing that needs to be
[00:59:43] Speaker 6 · Machine re-recognized
met
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:59:43–00:59:43 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:59:43] Speaker 6
Um, for each case that you, that you're hearing. So on the procedural due process, um, again, that requires reasonable notice of the hearing, um, and an opportunity to be heard on the matters at issue.
[01:00:01] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:01–01:00:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:00:07] Speaker 6
as the city code require certain notices to be given, um, prior to code enforcement.
[01:00:14] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:14–01:00:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:00:20] Speaker 6
I'm looking at it as well.
[01:00:21] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:21–01:00:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:00:28] Speaker 6
Did they, you know, did the code enforcement officers give them 10 days in advance? Did they fill out an affidavit? Did they do the things that they need to do to meet the Florida statutes?
[01:00:37] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:37–01:00:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:00:39] Speaker 6
that's pretty well established by law. What, what that due process, uh, requires in terms of notice.
[01:00:47] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:00:47–01:00:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:00:51] Speaker 6
be able to present evidence. They are allowed to cross examine witnesses. So it would be rare, but it's possible that someone could, um, come up and want to cross examine. One of the code enforcement officers. It's happened before, especially if someone is represented by an attorney, they may want to cross examine the code enforcement officer. They may want to cross examine witnesses that have been, um, presented on the case. Um, they also have to be, uh, the party should be informed of all the facts that are presented to the
[01:01:28] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:28–01:01:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:01:30] Speaker 6
Again, that means all the evidence should be, um, in the record. It should be presented here at the hearing before them. You shouldn't be receiving evidence outside of this room, um, about that case. It should all be presented to you here and should be easily determined when, let's say a reviewing court. If it's, if the decision is appealed, they know how, what evidence, what the evidence was that you based your decision on. So it all needs to be here in the record. Procedural due process also requires that you all behave in an impartial manner. If you feel that you have a case before you that you cannot act in an unbiased manner, um, and you can't do that without having a prejudgment of what, of the issues.
[01:02:23] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:23–01:02:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:02:28] Speaker 6
attorney that's here, um, need to know,
[01:02:32] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:32–01:02:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:02:33] Speaker 6
that before that case begins. Um, and at that point you would need to recuse yourself,
[01:02:41] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:41–01:02:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:02:49] Speaker 6
so to speak, right?
[01:02:52] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:52–01:02:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:02:59] Speaker 6
Ex-party communications are contacts that are made by an interested party, uh, to a proceeding with a decision maker outside of the presence of other parties. Um, and that, so let's just give an example. Um, if a property owner gets a notice of violation and they do
[01:03:20] Attribution uncertain
that,
[01:03:20] Speaker 6
decide they're going to contact one of the board members.
[01:03:23] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:03:23–01:03:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:03:27] Speaker 6
It should not occur because, um, you know, again, you are all supposed to be acting like a judge and you would not expect that if you were coming into a court proceeding. That your judge had talked to the other party outside of your presence. Right?
[01:03:45] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:03:45–01:03:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:03:51] Speaker 6
If it happens, it needs to be disclosed on the record at the beginning of that case or that hearing. So you need to would basically need to, uh, explain on the record, this person contacted me and, you know, told me such an, you know, whatever, whatever the substance of the conversation was. Um, ‸ to try to avoid that head, you really, you know, my suggestion to you is if a property owner does contact you, try to, you know, avoid that communication. Let them know. I'm not able to talk to you about your case outside of the hearing. Just, you know, bring it to the hearing, explain it there.
[01:04:33] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:04:33–01:04:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:04:36] Speaker 6
Right? So try to avoid that kind of communication because, um, you know, obviously the idea would be if, if, you know, if the communication is so prejudicial, that might put you in a place where you might not be able to participate in that vote. So we want to avoid ex party communications as much as possible. All right. So, as I said, we should avoid ex party communications concerning cases.
[01:05:11] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:11–01:05:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:19] Speaker 6
that are not disclosed on the record, uh, which concern the merits of, of a
[01:05:23] Speaker 6 · Machine re-recognized
quasi-judicial
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:05:23–01:05:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:05:24] Speaker 6
case.
[01:05:25] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:25–01:05:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:32] Speaker 6
do is direct non city staff, uh, that are contacting board members to discuss cases to the city manager, ‸ code enforcement
[01:05:39] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:05:39–01:05:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:39] Speaker 6
So for example, if someone, if a, if a property owner does approach you, one other possible thing you might do is suggest maybe you want to talk to your, the code enforcement, uh, officer, or you want to talk to the city manager.
[01:05:53] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:53–01:05:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:55] Speaker 6
but I can't, as a board member, talk to you about that. So that's one suggestion as well for you.
[01:06:02] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:02–01:06:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:06:07] Speaker 6
communications, those communications have to be publicly disclosed written communication. So if you receive an email from a property owner about their case, um, that should be forwarded to the code board clerk and that would become part of the record. Um, and again, I, as I said, if it's a verbal communication, then you would disclose by announcing to the board, um, prior to, to the commencement of that case, what the nature of your conversation was with that person. And when, when, when it occurred.
[01:06:42] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:42–01:06:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:06:47] Speaker 6
about the, the ex party communications, because that really is an element of, again, of making sure that proper procedural due process is afforded to each person that comes before you. Um,
[01:07:02] Attribution uncertain
the
[01:07:02] Speaker 6
second, um, I guess, uh, characteristic of the, uh, or review, um, standard that would be, uh, used for your code board cases, um, is whether you've observed the essential requirements of law. Well, what does that mean? That means that you, the board has applied the correct law that is applicable to your decision.
[01:07:29] No voice detected
So,
[01:07:30] Speaker 6
and again, you know, you're, you're looking at certain code violations that have been noticed in the notice of violation, right? And the criteria, what, what, what I would call criteria is really what are the elements or the things required by the code for each thing cited, right? Um, if it's weeds, you know, you have tall weeds. Well, has the
[01:07:57] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:07:57–01:08:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:01] Speaker 6
officers, have they actually proved each element or each, uh, aspect of that code section? Have they proved that it is weeds?
[01:08:11] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:11–01:08:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:14] Speaker 6
Have they done all of the things that are listed in that code section? Um, and there is, there's, you know, stricter compliance is required for determining each violation exists. The, as, as Deborah mentioned before,
[01:08:31] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:31–01:08:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:35] Speaker 6
um, or that the respondent hasn't come into compliance in a timely manner as ordered by the board. I gave a couple examples here. So, um, this was this Orange County versus Lewis case, just to kind of explain what observing the essential requirements of law means. Um,
[01:08:54] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:54–01:08:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:59] Speaker 6
violation of the zoning ordinance for using their agricultural property to store a mobile home. The code board had found that there was a violation for having that mobile home on the agricultural property. The circuit court actually reversed the code board and then the appellate court said, no, you know, the code board actually got it right because the circuit court said, well, there was nobody living in it. Nobody living in the mobile homes. There was no, there was no violation.
[01:09:31] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:09:31–01:09:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:09:31] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:09:32] Speaker 6
And the, uh, the court of
[01:09:34] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:09:34–01:09:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:09:36] Speaker 6
nothing in the code actually required somebody to live in that mobile home. As long as there was a mobile home on the property, that was a violation. So I'm just giving you an example of how that might play out, um, in, in a court. Again, you're looking at what does the code actually say and, you know, has the code enforcement officer proven, proven that to you and, you know, they're going to look at that very carefully.
[01:10:06] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:06–01:10:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:10:11] Speaker 6
one of the cases that Deborah started talking about or alluded to when she said that we're starting to try to put more details in our motions. Um, that case said, well, you know, this was actually a special magistrate decision, um, that was appealed and the special magistrate did not include any findings of fact or conclusions of law. In their decision.
[01:10:37] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:37–01:10:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:10:43] Speaker 6
and talked about defenses that they may have had. In that case, it was, you know, the, the code, um, officer or the, the city had actually permitted the work that they then claimed was a violation. So they at least raised some defense and there was no evidence or suggestion in the record that, you know, the, that the special magistrate had actually considered those defenses or there was really nothing for the court to go on.
[01:11:17] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:17–01:11:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:22] Speaker 6
to try and be, um, more specific about the reasons why you are finding your violation, a violation exists or doesn't exist when you're making your motion. And that is a fairly recent case.
[01:11:39] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:39–01:11:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:45] Speaker 6
is that the decision has to be based on competent and substantial evidence. Um, again, what, what does that mean? Well, it means that you have received relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a ‸ conclusion. Um,
[01:12:02] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:12:02–01:12:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:12:04] Speaker 6
you know? And as Deborah said, is it, it's basically just slightly more than, than not. Have they, have they slightly, uh, met that, that burden? There has to be some quantity, which the court says is more than a scintilla. They like to use fun words like that. Some quantity of legally admissible evidence supporting each criteria, or in this case, each, um, as I call them, like element of the violation that you, uh, have been presented. The court, um, if there, if it's a, your decision would be appealed, the court won't actually go and reweigh the evidence.
[01:12:43] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:12:43–01:12:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:12:47] Speaker 6
the court will, um, uphold that determination. But as we said before, the, uh, the evidence has to be contained in the record. So again, very important that you base your decisions only on what's presented to you here and that's recorded.
[01:13:13] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:13:13–01:13:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:13:17] Speaker 6
uh, and comparison of what, uh, quasi judicial versus a legislative decision might, might be. Um, the, this, we went over the standards of review here, which were the, the three prongs that I talked about, um, for the quasi judicial decisions. Um, and we, we said it's not applying policy or creating policy, but you're applying codes that have already been created or approved by the city to determine whether someone has violated that code.
[01:13:53] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:13:53–01:14:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:13:59] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:13:59] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[01:14:04] Speaker 6
So the, uh, the sunshine law, uh, provides that.
[01:14:09] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:14:09–01:14:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:14:15] Speaker 6
the Sunshine Law is it really requires three things. It requires meetings of a governing board or or even an advisory body to be held in public. There has to be notice to the public when that meeting is going to take place and there has to be minutes of that meeting taken. So those are the three essential requirements of the Sunshine Law.
[01:14:44] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:14:44–01:14:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:14:49] Speaker 6
board or commission of any agency or authority of a county, municipality or political subdivision at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times and no resolution rule or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such a meeting. So, you know, and I'll cover this in another slide, but but essentially
[01:15:16] Speaker 6 · Machine re-recognized
that's
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:15:16–01:15:17 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:15:17] Speaker 6
saying if there is a meeting that occurs and it wasn't properly noticed, let's say, that action may be void of the board. We would have to go back and cure that that notice and and correct it. So the like I said, the formal action that you take would not be binding. It would be it would be void. So it is important to make sure that all of our our meetings are properly noticed and that the meetings that take place occur only in this room in a place where they can be recorded minutes can be kept and so forth.
[01:16:05] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:16:05–01:16:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:16:05] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:16:06] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:16:07] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:16:07] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[01:16:10] Speaker 6
It the Florida law provides that a meeting can occur even if it's only between two members doesn't even require a quorum. If you are discussing board business or matters which could reasonably and foreseeably come before the board. Um, then that between two board members at least two. Then that meeting that is considered a meeting and it needs to be noticed and it needs to be occur in the public. Uh, uh,
[01:16:45] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:16:45–01:16:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:16:50] Speaker 6
Um, as I said, minutes need to be taken also and they will be made available for public inspection at a later date. So, um, some of the more complicated issues related to the sunshine law start to emerge when you mix in email or electronic, uh, communication, right? People are you're you're it's much easier, um, to have a meeting perhaps than it used to be, um, by texting or on social media or all those kinds of things.
[01:17:28] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:28–01:17:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:30] Speaker 6
um,
[01:17:31] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:31–01:17:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:37] Speaker 6
written correspondence, emails, text messages, or any other type of electronic communication. That is clear.
[01:17:46] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:46–01:17:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:50] Speaker 6
you all.
[01:17:50] Attribution uncertain
It
[01:17:50] Speaker 6
can, a meeting can occur via writing and it can occur even if it doesn't happen. Right. Simultaneously, obviously, right. You can send a text message and an hour later someone responds. A meeting has occurred in that case. Um, I included this, this, uh, point on the slides, although I don't think that, um, I certainly wouldn't recommend that you all do it.
[01:18:20] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:18:20–01:18:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:18:24] Speaker 6
but there are, uh, attorney general opinions that say you could have, um, what are called position statements that are sent to other, uh, board members if you want to provide information or provide your position on an issue. Um, you could do that, uh,
[01:18:46] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:18:46–01:18:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:18:49] Speaker 6
So, um, you know, there's, there's always that risk that somebody is going to hit reply all. So it's, it's certainly not recommended. Um, but it is allowed technically under the sunshine law,
[01:19:03] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:19:03–01:19:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:05] Speaker 6
But in your situation, as I said, it may pose other procedural due process concerns, right? If you all are taking a position about something and you know, that, that email is sent out to the board and that's not really made part of the record, things like that. It can cause issues for, for the types of cases that you're hearing. This really is something that I like, like I said, is more applicable to, uh, like the city council or a policy setting board rather than a quasi judicial board.
[01:19:38] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:19:38–01:19:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:40] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Don't do it.
[01:19:41] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:19:41–01:19:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:41] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:19:41] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:19:42] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:19:42–01:19:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:46] Speaker 2
the hearing on the case.
[01:19:47] Speaker 6
Yeah. Um, again, this is probably more applicable to, uh, this is more applicable to, uh, the city council, but the sunshine law itself does not prohibit the board from taking action on a, on an item. That's not specifically on the agenda. However, as I said, other procedural due process concerns or code requirements requiring certain notice might, uh, prevent you from doing so.
[01:20:19] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:19–01:20:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:20:24] Speaker 6
you know, that there has to be certain notice given.
[01:20:27] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:27–01:20:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:20:28] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:20:28] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:20:29] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:29–01:20:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:20:31] Speaker 6
comes up on your, um, agendas that is just added at the last minute. Um, sunshine law and public comment. Well, again, in general, members of the public at, at public meetings have to be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission. Um, that basically means that before final action is taken, let's say at a city council meeting, um, anyone who wants to speak on that, on that issue has to be given the opportunity to do so. That doesn't apply to you as a code enforcement enforcement board, because there is a specific exception in the sunshine law for quasi judicial, uh, ‸ hearings. So anyone who comes to a code enforcement board meeting certainly is welcome to sit and listen to the proceedings, listen to what's going on. That does not give that person the right to come up and speak to you.
[01:21:39] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:21:39–01:21:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:21:44] Speaker 6
a case, of course, they have the right to come up and speak to you. But if it's, let's say a neighbor or someone who lives across the, you know, across the street, whatever, they don't have the right to come up and
[01:21:55] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:21:55–01:22:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:21:56] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:21:56] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[01:22:02] Speaker 6
Okay. So you do not need to take a public comment on cases. And, you know, unless the board was considering something generally or taking, let's say you were going to, um, adopt a policy about, about something. Let's, I'm just using an example. If you were going to adopt a policy about how the board would issue subpoenas. Okay. That would be something where you would need to take public comment, but not on your quasi judicial
[01:22:36] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:22:36–01:22:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:22:40] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:11]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:22:40–01:22:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:22:52] Speaker 6
Is that at the conclusion of the hearing, the board has to issue findings of fact based on the evidence in the record and conclusions of law. We've talked about that.
[01:23:02] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:23:02–01:23:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:23:08] Speaker 6
majority of the members present voting, except that at least four members of a seven member board have to vote.
[01:23:15] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:23:15–01:23:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:23:15] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:23:16] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:23:19] Speaker 6
So that's just something to keep in mind. That's a requirement of chapter 162. Um, in terms of abstention from voting. Um,
[01:23:31] Attribution uncertain
the
[01:23:31] Speaker 6
sunshine law does require you to vote. Um, unless you have a, uh, you have to abstain because of, again, you have, um, you know, you have to recuse yourself because you are biased, right? Or you're unable to, to participate in that decision.
[01:23:51] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:23:51–01:23:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:23:55] Speaker 6
So basically, unless you have those two things, um, either one of those two things, you must participate in each vote that comes before you. Even on things that are as simple as approving the minutes, right?
[01:24:10] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:10–01:24:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:24:11] Speaker 6
the last, last hearing, let's say you still need to vote on approving the minutes. You must vote. All right. So just to kind of wrap up on the sunshine law. Um, these are my sunshine law don'ts, uh, do not talk about matters during recesses. Um, do not talk about matters that, uh, are gonna ‸ come before the board, um, either before or after ‸ meetings.
[01:24:43] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:24:43–01:24:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:24:49] Speaker 6
Okay. Don't pass notes or whisper, um, to other members during a meeting, um, because what, what goes on needs to be, um, the, the public needs to be able to hear what's going on. At the meeting. Uh, do not talk about board business in, in social settings generally. Um, again, that really applies if there's another board member there. Um, and do not talk about votes, hearings, or actions after the public meeting. As that matter can potentially come back to you in a different context. I know that's
[01:25:29] Speaker 2
hard because I know that ‸ a lot of times you, if there's something really contentious that we've, we've been dealing with after the meeting is over. Uh, it's a natural response to want to, wow. Do you believe that guy? And,
[01:25:45] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:25:45–01:25:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:25:49] Speaker 2
Don't talk about it.
[01:25:50] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
because
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:25:50–01:25:50 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:25:50] Speaker 2
it'll come before you again, or it could come before you again.
[01:25:55] Speaker 6
Yeah. Uh,
[01:25:56] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:25:56–01:26:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:26:00] Speaker 6
matter, for example, has been known to send something back to the code
[01:26:05] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:05–01:26:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:26:14] Speaker 6
consider. So things could could very well be sent back to you for further consideration by the City Council but you know the penalties for the Sunshine Law violations they they are pretty severe I mean, ‸ don't want to scare anybody, but you know it can be actually a criminal violation if you violate the Sunshine Law knowingly you could be removed from from your office. There could be fines that are imposed. Of course, if the City was sued as a result of a Sunshine Law violation the if they are prevailing in that lawsuit, they would be entitled to their attorneys fees. And the action, as we talked about, any action that actually occurred when there was the meeting would be void, and it would have to be redone again. So it's, it's, ‸ the consequences can be severe. So if you do have questions about that, certainly you
[01:27:27] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:27:27–01:27:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:27:30] Speaker 6
me as well if needed but you know these are things that you need to be aware of, since you're on a board. oh
[01:27:40] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:27:40–01:27:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:27:49] Speaker 6
the public records okay so the Public Records Act essentially requires that all municipal records be open for inspection and copying by any person. And we have a duty as a city to provide access to public records if a request is made for them.
[01:28:16] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:28:16–01:28:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:28:24] Speaker 6
know, paper letters or, you know, paper copies. It could include books that the city has, it could include photos, it includes even things like voicemails, right? If there's a recording of that communication, it's subject to the public records act. the records that are, can our public records have to be retained in accordance with records retention schedules that are dictated by the state. And
[01:28:59] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:28:59–01:29:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:29:04] Speaker 6
kind of record it is how long it has to be kept before it can be destroyed. And some records have to be kept forever in perpetuity. So it just depends on what it is. there's no requirement that requests for a public record or for public records has to be made in writing or in a particular format I think some people have that misunderstanding they think oh you know if I get a request for a public record I tell them to go to see the city clerk and you have to fill out a form. No, that's that's actually not accurate. If someone makes a ‸ is asking you as a board member for a record that you have related to the code enforcement board and your role in the code enforcement board
[01:29:55] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:29:55–01:30:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:30:00] Speaker 6
touch with the city clerk's office. And
[01:30:02] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:30:02–01:30:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:30:06] Speaker 6
you know, you're dealing with. You're dealing with a public records request at that point, even if they haven't made some formal request in writing or on a particular form. So let Darla know if you think you may have received a request for for a record
[01:30:28] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:30:28–01:30:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:30:37] Speaker 6
under Chapter 112 of the Florida statutes. That includes both elected and appointed officials. And
[01:30:45] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:30:45–01:30:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:30:52] Speaker 6
to you. um I have given kind of a bullet point list here of the prohibitions. um And I don't necessarily want to go through each and every one, but I will say that this is a very complicated area of law. um Even though I've given you a lot of, like I said, these bullet points, there are a lot of exceptions that exist. There is a whole body of uh ethics opinions that have been issued by the Florida Commission on Ethics applying these rules. So if you have questions about something that you think might you know trigger
[01:31:38] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:31:38–01:31:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:31:39] Speaker 6
one of these um requirements or prohibitions, please make sure you
[01:31:44] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:31:44–01:31:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:31:47] Speaker 6
or the city attorney because um there could be an exception that applies or or what have you. It usually is not necessarily an easy answer. I'll put it that ‸ way. um you uh I guess I'll just start with um
[01:32:06] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:06–01:32:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:32:13] Speaker 6
or service given for the purpose of influencing your vote. Okay, that seems pretty pretty standard. We don't do bribes. Okay, so
[01:32:23] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:23–01:32:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:32:24] Speaker 6
let's not do that. um So don't accept any gifts knowing that they're trying to influence your your vote on this board. um If you have a business business, um
[01:32:38] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:38–01:32:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:32:45] Speaker 6
rent property goods or services to the city, that that could potentially um be problematic and and create a conflict of
[01:32:54] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: words the first reading may have missed · 01:32:54–01:32:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:32:55] Speaker 6
there are a lot of exceptions to that rule. But if you are a business person and you plan to do business with the city or think you want to do business with the city, that's something that should be brought to our attention before you before you do that. um
[01:33:11] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:33:11–01:33:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:33:18] Speaker 6
You cannot hold conflicting employment or contractual relationships. That basically means you
[01:33:26] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:33:26–01:33:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:33:27] Speaker 6
have a contractual relationship or be employed by an agency or a business that does business with the city and
[01:33:36] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:33:36–01:33:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:33:39] Speaker 6
or be employed by an employer where it's going to create a continuing or frequently occurring conflict of interest. It it will, let's say that you uh your business was a, I'm just giving an example, your business uh was buying uh ‸ maybe, um I'm trying to think of a good example. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like if you were doing a software, that's not really that related to the code board. But nevertheless, uh
[01:34:16] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:16–01:34:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:34:21] Speaker 6
‸ right? If you, yeah, demolition company, that's a good example. Thank you. Right.
[01:34:26] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:26–01:34:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:34:31] Speaker 6
because you might have an interest in making sure that there's more liens on properties, right? If you have have an interest in in uh going out and demolishing properties. So if there's something like that, again, talk
[01:34:48] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:34:48–01:34:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:34:53] No voice detected
um
[01:34:53] Speaker 6
We, not that you all would typically, I don't know that you really would ever receive any kind of
[01:34:59] Speaker 6 · Machine re-recognized
privilege
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:34:59–01:34:59 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:34:59] Speaker 6
information. That's really something that is more of a city council issue, but
[01:35:05] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:05–01:35:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:35:10] Speaker 6
‸ And uh we, can you cannot vote on any measure which would in your to the special private gain or loss. That is a voting conflict. And I'm going to cover that on the next slide. So I'll just move on to that.
[01:35:28] No voice detected
um
[01:35:29] Speaker 6
this is the last slide. So voting conflicts. are a particular section of the code of ethics ethics. And it provides that no municipal officer or public officer can vote in an official capacity on any measure which would inured to his or her special private gain or loss. Or to the special private gain or loss of these three types of people, right?
[01:35:57] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:57–01:36:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:36:01] Speaker 6
or loss of a principal by whom you are retained. So essentially, if your client, client let's say was a, uh was here and had a code enforcement violation on the agenda,
[01:36:14] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:36:14–01:36:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:36:18] Speaker 6
That would create a conflict of interest. um or if your employer was the subject of a code violation, that would be a conflict of interest.
[01:36:28] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:36:28–01:36:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:36:32] Speaker 6
of
[01:36:32] Attribution uncertain
a relative or loss
[01:36:32] Speaker 6
of even the parent organization or a subsidiary of a corporate
[01:36:37] Speaker 6 · Machine re-recognized
principle
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:36:37–01:36:38 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:36:38] Speaker 6
by which you are retained, uh retained. So, you know,
[01:36:42] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:36:42–01:36:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:36:45] Speaker 6
of the company that you work with is the subject of a code enforcement violation, again, that, that creates a conflict of interest. And finally, if it would, your vote would enter to the, special private gain or loss of a relative or a business associate of yours, um and I've provided the list here of the relatives that are in the statute and that apply. It's actually not you know any relative. It's only the relatives that are listed here. So if you you know your um son or daughter, let's say, is the subject of a code enforcement violation, again, your vote could cause a monetary loss right to your son or daughter and would create a conflict of interest were you to vote. So that that's really what what this is about. When it talks about, the statute talks about special private gain or loss, that means it must be an economic benefit or harm that could be received by you or by your relative or your um your employer your
[01:38:04] Attribution uncertain
employer
[01:38:04] Speaker 6
um If you are going to have a voting conflict uh or you think you're going to have a voting conflict, again, I really strongly recommend that you talk to Deborah before the um the hearing starts so she can advise you um about that. It's not good for us to be caught off guard because, like I said, there are a lot of exceptions and the code of ethics is very nuanced, right?
[01:38:34] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:38:34–01:38:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:38:40] Speaker 6
um Before the vote is taken, you would have to publicly state to the board the nature of the interest, your interest in the matter, and that you would be abstaining. And then within 15 days after the vote occurs, you have to fill out a disclosure
[01:38:59] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:38:59–01:39:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:39:02] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a possible machine repair could not be placed · 01:39:02–01:39:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:39:02] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:39:02] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[01:39:07] Speaker 6
um And it basically has you explain on the form why you had a voting conflict and you were recusing yourself
[01:39:16] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:39:16–01:39:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:39:24] Speaker 6
in the discussion on that case if you were to have a voting conflict unless you first disclose the nature of your interest. In my view, I do not even recommend that. The the Florida law says that you could, if you disclose your interest, actually participate in the in the dis in the discussion on the decision and then
[01:39:49] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:39:49–01:39:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:39:49] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:39:49] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:39:49] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:39:51] Speaker 6
end. However, I think that that may cause other types of issues, for example, procedural due process issues that we talked about. It would not be good if you had a voting conflict and you were trying to influence the other board members in a discussion, right? So my recommendation is do not participate in this in the discussion and do not vote if you believe you're going to have a voting conflict. um ‸ the uh And that memo, the form 8B has to be filed within 15 days after the meeting and
[01:40:29] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:40:29–01:40:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:40:35] Speaker 6
subsequent meetings. um Or for for that that particular meeting, sorry. It will be um available at the next meeting um
[01:40:45] Attribution uncertain
for
[01:40:45] Speaker 6
the board to see. um And again,
[01:40:49] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:40:49–01:40:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:40:52] Speaker 6
there's some competing interest Something that might be, of may not be a voting conflict per se under the Florida statute could present a procedural due process issue for the reasons we talked about before, which is you the people that come here have to have an impartial decision maker. So even if, let's say, maybe it didn't quite meet the standards here for a voting conflict, for other reasons, you might need to recuse yourself to ensure that they have an impartial, um an impartial board. um And with that, uh that's the end of my presentation. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to take them. um I think, yeah, we did pretty well on time.
[01:41:36] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I have a question.
[01:41:38] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yes. I
[01:41:40] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
have a couple. um That case that Hayes versus Monroe.
[01:41:45] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:41:45–01:41:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:41:51] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
anybody was living in this trailer that was illegal. How did it get that far? yeah I mean, we ask all kinds of questions to try to eliminate something like that happening.
[01:42:04] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:42:04–01:42:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:42:06] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
an answer for that. um I mean, again, you know, that case really just brought uh ‸ really reinforced that the the Florida statutes require you to make findings and conclusions. That's really the takeaway from that case. And so, you know, we need to make sure that we do that to the best extent uh possible. I
[01:42:31] Speaker 3
have another question, please.
[01:42:37] No voice detected
If
[01:42:37] Speaker 3
somebody speaks to somebody else about a case that's been here, but the case has been resolved and all, it's a matter of public record. Can we
[01:42:50] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:50–01:42:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:42:53] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
[01:42:58] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
likely you could, but as we talked about, there is the potential for it to come back to you. That's the concern. um Because
[01:43:08] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:43:08–01:43:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:43:15] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
it could end up coming back to you later. And I mean, one thing is, for example, like a notice of violation, your first hearing, you certainly don't want to be talking to another uh code board member about that case when it's going to come back to you for the Massey hearing, right? You know that that
[01:43:36] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:43:36–01:43:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:43:37] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:43:38] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
‸ everybody that comes in here. They can see what's going on and also, yeah
[01:43:43] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
it's
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:43:43–01:43:43 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:43:43] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
a matter of a public record.
[01:43:45] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:43:45–01:43:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:43:49] Speaker 2
of the public is not public. So when you're talking to other code board members after the meeting or a week later, the members of the public aren't aware of what you're talking about.
[01:44:04] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
Are you talking just between members or
[01:44:07] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:44:07–01:44:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:44:09] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:44:10] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
talk to anybody about the code cases that you hear. It's
[01:44:14] Attribution uncertain
all
[01:44:14] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
a matter of public record.
[01:44:15] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:44:15–01:44:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:44:19] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
If you're saying to another person, yes, that case was on the agenda. Yeah, that that's a matter of public record. If you're saying to
[01:44:27] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:44:27–01:44:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:44:30] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:44:30–01:44:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:44:33] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yes, that's a public record. But if you're talking to the person about information that that could make you look like you're biased or unreasonably what you're saying favor
[01:44:48] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
that
[01:44:48] Speaker 1
person.
[01:44:48] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:44:48–01:44:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:44:51] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
about general talk, not getting involved with the actual business of the board.
[01:44:57] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I'm
[01:44:58] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
not talking about that. I had just one more question, please. um
[01:45:03] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:45:03–01:45:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:45:08] Speaker 6
Yeah.
[01:45:10] Speaker 3
Now, here's the thing. I've seen all kinds of cases and I wouldn't believe how many customers of mine are out there. And
[01:45:18] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:45:18–01:45:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:45:23] Speaker 3
here.
[01:45:24] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
And
[01:45:24] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
yet, I was told I had to vote on it because of, not that I was connected ‸ with these people, it's just that I knew them pretty well. I have a shop that we build cars and motors, and I really get involved with it. they're they're People come back all the time, so I get to know people.
[01:45:45] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
yeah
[01:45:46] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
And here they are before our board here, and I just didn't know if I can present from that or not.
[01:45:53] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
um I think that if you're
[01:45:58] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
there
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:45:58–01:45:58 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:45:59] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
a recurring client a frequently recurring client, that might be something that you want to talk to to Deborah about. um ‸ Because if you're, you, the test again is whether or not that your vote would, in order to the gain or loss of that client, right? And of course, it would be in their best interest, your client's best interest for you to find that there's no violation. Okay. So if you have frequently recurring uh customers that that are coming to
[01:46:37] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:46:37–01:46:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:46:39] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:46:41] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
come to me. ‸ they All of a sudden, I look out there and I say,
[01:46:44] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:46:44–01:46:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:46:45] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[01:46:48] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
or they're, they're an occasional customer. If, if it was your primary client that you get, you know, 75 of your revenue from, yeah
[01:46:58] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
usually yeah
[01:46:59] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
definitely you would want to, ‸ you know, abstain because you don't want to look unfair. But
[01:47:05] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:47:05–01:47:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:47:09] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
or just an occasional customer that it's not going to be an issue. i
[01:47:16] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
I, I would agree with that, you know, and, and again, as long as if you, if, but if someone is a very close friend and you feel,
[01:47:23] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:47:23–01:47:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:47:28] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
and make a decision about whether or not my friend violated the code, which could have serious financial consequences for my friend. That would be a situation where even if, like I said, they don't meet the specific voting conflicts test, you still could recuse yourself because at that point you're unable to provide an unbiased, you know, decision. But I could talk
[01:47:57] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
with the board attorney before. and
[01:47:59] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah, and of course talk to the board attorney. But again, though that I agree 100 If the person is just really a casual acquaintance, that's that's not an issue. And I mean, that's going to happen because
[01:48:11] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:48:11–01:48:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:48:14] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
is you're active members of the
[01:48:18] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:48:18–01:48:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:48:18] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
community. That's why we have a board as opposed to, ‸ let's say, a special magistrate. um
[01:48:24] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:48:24–01:48:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:48:26] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
It's just a really it becomes whether or not you feel that you can you know make a fair judgment on the case.
[01:48:35] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:48:35–01:48:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:48:36] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:48:39] Speaker 6
Any other questions? Are
[01:48:41] Speaker 3
we going to conclude the meeting?
[01:48:44] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:48:44–01:48:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:48:50] Speaker 3
for the evening.
[01:48:51] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:48:51–01:48:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:48:53] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]

Transcript revision built 2026-10-27T12:06:15 · 12,118 ordinary words, 2,946 in suspect passages, 24 machine re-recognized.

Ask about this meeting

Use the search to ask a question about this meeting in particular, or compare it across other meetings in the archive.