SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (STVRAC)

Transcription

1 SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (STVRAC) Glenn Powell, District 1 (Chairman) Joel Molinari, Sr., District 3 Joe Paladin, District 2 (Vice Chairman) Alan Curtis, District 4 Angela Beckley Waldrop, Member at Large Glenn Heran, District 5 Dr. Robert DeWaters, Sr., Member at Large George Bryant, Alternate The Short Term Vacation Rental Advisory Committee (STVRAC) will meet at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 14, 2016 in the County Administration Complex, Building B, B1-501, th Street, Vero Beach. 1) Call to Order AGENDA 2) Election of 2016 Chairman and Vice Chairman Action Required 3) Approval of Minutes of December 10, 2015 Action Required 4) Old Business: a) Homestead and Property Assessment - Bill DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney b) Economic Impact Information Stan Boling, Community Development Director c) Commissioner Tim Zorc item on Occupancy Limits Joe Paladin, Committee Member 5) New Business: a) Fines & Citations Stan Boling, Community Development Director Action Required 6) Other Business 7) Announcement of Next Meeting 8) Adjournment cc: Joe Baird, Administrator Bill DeBraal, Attorneys Office Mike Zito, Assistant County Administrator Scott Johnson, Webmaster Stan Boling, Community Development Director Richard Marini, EMS John McCoy, Current Development Chief John Duran, EMS Roland DeBlois, Chief, Environmental & Code Enforcement John King, EMS Director Tuck Ferrell, Interested Party Norma Kissner, Interested Party Colleen Rosenbaum, Interested Party Luanne Foti, Interested Party Alan Corbin, Interested Party Barry Segal, Esquire, Interested Party Daniel Lamson, Interested Party Herb Whittall, Interested Party Honey Minuse, Interested Party Tim McGarry, Interested Party Peggy Lyon, Interested Party Miles Conway, Interested Party BCC Office Commissioner Peter O Bryan Commissioner Bob Solari Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Carter Taylor, Interested Party Mitch Dudek, Interested Party Sandy Wright, Attorney s Office Bronia Jenkins, Interested Party John M. King, Interested Party

2 Except for those matters specifically exempted under State Statute and Local Ordinance, the Committee shall provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the undertaking by the Committee of any action on the agenda. Public comment shall also be heard on any proposition which the Committee is to take action which was either not on the agenda or distributed to the public prior to the commencement of the meeting. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.

3 SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Indian River County (IRC) Short Term Vacation Rental Advisory Committee (STVRAC) met at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 10, 2015, in the County Administration Building, Building B, th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the agenda and the minutes on the IRC website Present were: Chairman Glenn Powell, District 1 Appointee; Joel Molinari, Sr., District 3 Appointee; Alan Curtis, District 4 Appointee; Glenn Heran, District 5 Appointee; and Dr. Robert DeWaters, Jr. and Angela Beckley Waldrop, Members-at-Large Appointee. Absent were: Vice Chairman Joseph Paladin, District 2 Appointee (excused). IRC staff present were: Stan Boling, Community Development Director; Bill DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney; Cheryl Dunn, Health Department Environmental Manager; John King, Emergency Services Director; John Duran, Emergency Services, Lieutenant Inspector; and Misty L. Pursel, Commissioner Assistant, District 1 and Recording Secretary. Others present were: David Hunter, Carter Taylor and Dan Lamson, Indian River Neighborhood Association (IRNA); William Tuck Ferrell, Colleen Rosenbaum, Miles Conway, and Bronia Jenkins, Interested Parties. Call to Order & Welcome Chairman Glenn Powell called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Approval of Minutes of November 12, 2015 Auction Required Chairman Powell noted the following changes to be made: On Page 1, under Approval of Minutes of October 8, 2015, within the Motion, delete 2014; and on Page 2, under New Business, third paragraph, change the word lobbying to lodging. ON MOTION BY Dr. DeWaters, SECONDED BY Mr. Curtis, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the minutes of November 12, 2015, as revised. 1 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

4 New Business a. Fire Safety/Occupancy Limits/Septic Compliance Action Required Stan Boling, Community Development Director, reviewed his memorandum dated December 1, 2015, providing background, analysis and recommendations; a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He summarized additional information contained in the memorandum Attachments, including LDR Chapter Definition of Hotel/motel and lodging facilities, State Septic System Standard and the Health Department Septic System Evaluation Application Form & Interagency Form. Mr. Boling explained because the County dealt with fire safety and occupancy limits, there was coordination with the Emergency Services Director, John King and Fire Marshall, John Duran regarding fire safety issues. He reported the State of Florida (State) license for vacation rentals required smoke alarms, emergency lighting which activated when the power shut off; and a fire extinguisher. He continued vacation rental units were defined in the County Code as a residential unit. Mr. Boling mentioned currently there were no problems or particular issues the Indian River County Fire Department had reported with vacation rentals. Mr. Boling summarized staff s recommendation concerning vacation rental requirements consisted of when an applicant applied for local licensing, the applicant must provide photo documentation showing installation of the State required fire extinguisher, emergency lighting and smoke alarms. Mr. Boling reviewed the issues concerning septic system compliance and treating the vacation rental units as a residential use. He advised of the Health Department s requirements for units constructed under the pre-1983 rules and the post-1983 rules, and the Health Department s authority to have existing systems examined and evaluated by a contractor. He continued, staff s recommendation for vacation rental units on septic, was the applicant to have a system permit or evaluation approved by the Health Department from the last five years. He added to date, according to the Health Department, there were no reports or evidence of local issues involving septic tanks and vacation rental units. Ms. Waldorp asked, once the resident owner provided photographic evidence of compliance and proceeded to obtain the vacation rental license, who was responsible for following up for continued compliance and what were the penalties for non-compliance? She also inquired about those owners who did not report the rentals; hence were in licensing violation. 2 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

5 Mr. Boling responded in a previous meeting, this committee recommended the County establish its own local licensing for vacation rental units. He said currently there were no adopted local licensing requirement for vacation rental units. He continued if the County enacted a licensing requirement, the County s Code Enforcement department would enforce the licensing. Mr. Boling shared his understanding that the State of Florida did not provide any inspections for their licensing, unless there was an issue, or complaint. He said at this time, the Committee had not yet made a recommendation on whether there should be inspection by County staff, what staff would be inspecting for, and how often staff performed inspections, if any. Mr. Boling told the committee the County s approach was to keep the inspection issue streamlined. He used as an example, when the Health Department prepared an evaluation of a septic system, the Health Department did not inspect the septic system; a certified septic tank contractor evaluated the system and ensured criteria were met. He continued at the present time, staff was not proposing there be a fire or building inspector who inspected the emergency lighting for fire safety. Mr. Heran voiced his concern this committee was possibly getting ahead of itself and proposed to table this item until further evidence was available; i.e., fire related issues on vacation rentals units. He said before this committee began discussion on regulating this particular business, a discussion should be had on what economic impact to this community vacation rental units were responsible; how many vacation rental units were in Indian River County. He continued once the number of units were known, and how many were licensed with the State, how many could be estimated to be operating without licenses? He also posed the question, what was the dollar impact on licensing in terms of bed and sales tax to this community? Mr. Heran requested staff to provide the number of known vacation rentals in Indian River County, how rentals could be estimated, and how many complaints had been received related to vacation rentals. ON MOTION BY Mr. Heran, SECONDED BY Ms. Waldorp, it was recommended to table this matter until economic impacts of vacation rentals in Indian River County were reviewed. UNDER DISCUSSION, Mr. DeBraal estimated there were approximately 300 to 400 advertised vacation rentals units in Indian River County by owner websites. He added there was an overlap due to the websites categorizing the rentals by city, county, etc. 3 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

6 Mr. DeBraal responded to a question concerning statistics for fire safety issues by asking Lt. Duran if, at the time of responding to a fire safety call, was there a determination made whether the person present at the unit was a tenant or owner. Lt. Duran responded it was deemed as a structure fire, no matter if it was a hotel or residence. Discussion ensued regarding concerns of burdening taxpayers by regulating a business, economic impact on a community driven by tourism, and the incidence of complaints. Mr. Boling reported actions taken by Indian River County since July, 2012, included 11 complaints at different sites, and two Ordinances: (1) prohibits a single family residence being rented for a wedding-type event or commercial events ; and (2) regulates excess parking; allowing five cars parked outside a vacation rental, which the number of vehicles was based upon how many bedrooms were in the house. Mr. David Hunter, IRNA, stated homes converted into a daily or weekly rental were defined by the State as a public lodging establishment, such as hotel, motels, and bed and breakfast establishments. He suggested the County differentiate between a property being used as a public lodging establishment and a residential home, and correct County law. He provided a copy of an occupancy checklist used by code enforcement authorities across the country before a license was issued, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Mr. Glenn Heran expressed his view that licensing was a good step; however, regulating before knowing the statistics and how the regulations would impact the industry was a wrong move. He further expressed 11 complaints/incidents in 4 years was not an industry screaming for regulations. Dr. Miles Conway urged the Committee members to vote against the motion because the mandate assigned to the Committee from the Board of County Commissioners was to draft regulations to regulate the problem, not to table regulations. He stated the purpose of this committee was to exercise the socially responsible and protective arm of government. He also stated in his review, the total population of rentals ranged from 700 to 800, with the State license count at 60 vacation rentals. Dr. Conway told the Committee a State license was not the solution to the problem. He said what was going to give the State license teeth, was this Committee rejecting the motion to table the discussion and to recommend passing local regulations. 4 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

7 Mr. Molinari stated he supported less government and maintaining pinpointed accuracy with what was attempting to be accomplished in this Committee. He shared his thought the Committee had gotten off center with discussions and did not think it was a bad idea to table the matter a month, until the next meeting, to obtain accurate information before mandating restrictions. Mr. Hunter pointed out the County and the State were losing huge amounts of revenue by not pinning down the economic activity and getting all units licensed. He gave as example, with 400 to 800 vacation rentals, if some rental properties were going for $10,000 a week, the County was losing out on its bed tax and those taxes could help with inspectors to inspect properties. Chairman Powell reminded the Committee members by unanimous vote, this Committee supported the County s position in favor of requiring a local license. He mentioned should this Committee continue to bring up matters already decided upon, the tasks assigned to the Committee would never get accomplished. Mr. Carter Taylor, Executive Committee of the Indian River Neighborhood Association (IRNA) shared his observation of a situation of substantial noncompliance of State laws because the State will not donate any resources for this issue. He stated IRNA would further like to see the licensing regime for the County expanded so various elements of State law were adopted as Ordinance. Mr. Taylor further stated there was a gap between what State laws say, the desire to follow them, and the enforcement. He continued some of the powers normally exercised by the State should be vested in our local authorities to enforce the regulations existing on the State level and should be enforced. Mr. Taylor commented on Mr. Heran s motion to table discussion of septic tanks and fire safety was an inappropriate motion having been an attempt to cut off discussion of a topic this Committee was directed to discuss. Mr. Heran stated he was not requesting tabling the discussion; he was tabling the vote. He said he would rather see a package of regulations in its entirety versus piece meal, so at the end of discussion, there was an industry so regulated that good landlords would self-regulate. Chairman Powell said he did not believe the Committee needed to come up with a package and discuss individual pieces in order to understand what was necessary and what was to be regulated. He further stated he thought evaluating the financial impact was a useless exercise because all agreed the local economic impact of vacation rentals was significant. 5 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

8 Dr. DeWaters shared his thought this Committee did not have any business with the financial/economic impact, as this Committee was to decide what regulations were to be developed and how the County could control the regulations. He believed a well-regulated area equaled a pleasant experience, which equaled economic feasibility; having the neighborhoods preserved, the values of the homes preserved; and everyone was happy in a clean, neat, safe and pleasant place to rent with a value for their dollar. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, and the Motion failed 3-3 (Powell, DeWaters & Curtis in dissent). ON MOTION BY Mr. Heran, SECONDED BY Ms. Waldorp, the members voted 4-2 (Powell, Heran, Waldrop, Molinari) agreed to add the economic impacts of vacation rentals in Indian River County to the next Committee agenda. Chairman Powell suggested and asked Ms. Waldrop and Mrs. Colleen Rosenbaum to identify for the next Committee meeting two (2) properties typical vacation rental and how much revenue was brought into the County. Dr. Conway announced this Committee was not qualified for the task, as there was not a statistic representation. He said the only way of obtaining accurate statistics was under grand jury subpoena for the bed and breakfast records from the State Attorney General Office to obtain all the relevant financial information. Mr. Hunter said IRNA would be willing to develop a list of unlicensed properties in Indian River County, to assist in determining the size of the vacation rental market. Mr. Boling suggested Chairman Powell, Ms. Waldrop and Mrs. Rosenburg him the information on properties typical for vacation rental and how much revenue the rentals brought into the County. He reminded everyone the information would be of public record as soon as it was ed. He said by gathering this information, it would assist in getting an idea of a potential range of a vacation unit and how many vacation units were in Indian River County, although there would not be enough data to constitute a statistically valid sample. Mr. Hunter indicated Dr. Conway s beachfront property was recently reevaluated by the County Property Appraiser and reduced in value by 1.7 Million Dollars because of the activity of a vacation rental property which constituted an attractive nuisance in his property s immediate vicinity and this was something to bear in mind when introducing vacation rentals into some of the residential areas. 6 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

9 Mrs. Rosenbaum brought attention to when counting vacation rentals, one must take into consideration one vacation rental may be listed on more than one website and the occupancy would vary. She felt vacation rentals were more of a perception of a problem than a reality and she did not have any problems with regulations and protecting tenants, neighbors and communities; however, she felt tourism was vital to Indian River County and there was a way to make it work. Mr. Taylor commented much attention had been focused on how many complaints and the volume of complaints. He said not all matters were complaint driven, i.e., the failure to complain about the lack of a fire extinguisher should not be reason to not have a regulation to enforce fire safety. He stated fire safety should be pro-active, not reactive. Mrs. Rosenbaum inquired about the steps this committee was expected to take now and what awaited at future meetings. Mr. Boling explained the structure the Committee was following was to take individual topics, respond to questions, and then move forward with a draft (one topic at a time). He continued those draft recommendations would go into a final overall draft for the Committee s final evaluation before final recommendations went before the Board of County Commissioners. ON MOTION BY Mr. Curtis, SECONDED BY Dr. DeWaters, it was recommended to approve staff recommendations regarding the Vacation Rental Fire Safety. UNDER DISCUSSION, Mr. Heran confirmed the photo-documentation of smoke alarms, fire extinguisher, and emergency lighting within the unit was already State law. Mr. Boling confirmed it was State law, as a State licensing requirement, with the County s way of backing the State s requirement and at this time was not meant to require an on-site inspection. He said the license could be annual, every three years, etc., yet to be considered by the Committee. Mr. Hunter suggested the fire inspection standards to maintain sprinkler systems and posting of an exit path for the vacation rental properties, having fire extinguishers mounted next to the kitchen and other defined areas be included in an initial inspection as a contingency prior to issuing a County license. He explained the County would do an initial inspection of premises, before issuing a license and would check off a checklist such as the checklist provided to Chairman Powell and on file in the Commission Office. He continued this would indicate those checked off items were indeed in place and were functioning correctly. 7 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

10 Chairman Powell reminded Mr. Hunter the motion on the floor was to approve staff recommendations, which the matters spoken of by Mr. Hunter, was not a part of staff s recommendation. Mr. Hunter argued vacation rentals were not private homes, but public lodging establishments and asked if sprinkler systems were required in State requirements. Chairman Powell advised the State did not require a single family residence to have a sprinkler system. Dr. Conway asked to vote against the way staff had proposed this item and to include an initial inspection by the County because photographs did not confirm whether or not the protective devises were functional. Mr. Taylor referred to reliance upon inspections done pursuant to a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). He pointed out the CO may have occurred more in the past, with no regulatory official physically inspecting any of the facilities while the residence was converted from a private residential purpose to a public lodging establishment. He reminded the Committee of what Mr. Hunter had said about providing a uniformed and quality product to the public which would increase the economic value to the community. Chairman Powell mentioned as a vacation rental owner, he had smoke detectors in all rentals (3 of which houses were built before there were smoke detectors), because he wanted to protect his property, and no County or State regulation was going to change it. Mr. Boling confirmed in 2012, the County updated the definition of hotel and lodging facilities in the County s Land Development Regulations, a copy of same was provided in the agenda backup, specifically noting a residential unit, regardless of how often it was rented, was not a hotel or lodging facility. He said from fire code to building code, the unit was built as a residential unit and occupied as a residential unit. He continued, if treated as a commercial or lodging unit, a whole other category from a code standpoint, with a whole other regime of inspections and requirements applied. Mr. Boling stated staff was recommending a vacation rental be treated as a residential unit and to ensure County code compliance as a single family resident with the ability to confirm the property complied with the State standards as well. Mr. Taylor invited legal representatives for the County to review the assertion made by Mr. Boling to confirm it was the case under Florida laws. 8 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

11 Dr. Conway said in light of the parking ordinance, vacation rentals were differentiated from a conventional residence and he did not understand why the same distinction with the fire protection devices. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION, and the Motion passed unanimously (6-0). Septic Compliance Mr. Boling reiterated from his memorandum, the recommendation from the Health Department staff and County staff was for a licensee for a local license to provide evidence the unit was either on sewer, or the septic system was constructed, repaired or evaluated and approved by the Health Department within the last five years. Chairman Powell questioned whether the certification would include a system pumped out and in working order. Mr. Boling advised Ms. Cheryl Dunn, Health Department Environmental Manager, had to leave the Committee meeting due to another scheduled appointment; however, Ms. Dunn had told him the certification was usually performed by a contractor; however, an owner could also perform it utilizing a checklist to evaluate and complete; usually with a pump out every five years. He said the checklist included whether the septic system was properly sized based upon how many bedrooms; and if constructed after 1983, the number of bedrooms and unit size. Mr. Taylor asked whether staff s recommendation was for the septic system to be evaluated for proper sizing by the contractor with respect to current code, or the code under which the original permit was granted. Mr. Boling responded it was his understanding from the Health Department it was the code under which the original permit was granted. Mrs. Rosenbaum pointed out for a good portion of the year, the vacation rental unit was vacant, referring to the septic system not being affected. Chairman Powell stated in his experience with vacation rentals and septic tanks, different septic tanks required different amounts of maintenance, depending upon the baffle, age of tank and natural hazards such a tree roots, etc. He said this was a self-regulating issue, given when there was a problem with sewage, it demanded immediate attention. 9 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

12 Mr. Molinari stated generally, vacation rentals were privately owned properties, with the owners maintaining investment interest in the properties; therefore, motivated to properly maintain the rental property. He commented this motivation applied to most of the proposed regulations. Mr. Taylor shared his thought of the five-year inspection and maintenance regime was a great idea; however, the loop hole was the properties newly converted from residential to lodging establishment use. He continued those properties may not have been properly configured and should be required to have an inspection in the current year of the first license to ensure meeting code and properly functioning for a lodging use consistent with the reading of Chapter 64E- 6 of the Florida Administrative Code, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Mr. Taylor asked for the County s Ordinance to comply with State law and if the County did not require, upon the conversion of the property to a different use, an inspection at that time, a violation of State law existed. Mr. Boling stated the question of the change in use was State-wide; however, the local departments and other counties and municipalities treated vacation rental units as a single family home in terms of where it fit within the code category. He relayed his understanding from the Health Department that vacation rentals did not change the category of the use; however, there was a technical justification in the Health Department s code to require a 5-year time frame, a process already in place, with a $35 permit to ensure the septic system was functioning under applicable single family standards. Mr. DeBraal shared a change of use recognized by the Health Department would occur if, for example, a daycare was started up in your home that would trigger the inspection and the recertification. He confirmed according to the Health Department, by using the property as a vacation rental did not trip the necessary trigger for re-categorizing, re-sizing, re-certifying, and inspection. Dr. Conway read into the record Florida Statute (4): Except as provided for in Section , F.S., any existing and prior approved system which has been placed into use and which remains in satisfactory operating condition shall remain valid for use under the terms of the rule and permit under which it was approved. 10 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

13 Alterations that change the conditions under which the system was permitted and approved, sewage characteristics or increase sewage flow will require that the owner, or their authorized representative, apply for and receive re-approval of the system by the DOH county health department, prior to any alteration of the structure, or system. Dr. Conway reported having discussed this Statute with Ms. Dunn and received a written response, of which he read into the record: A residential rental homes are licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The wastewater capacity of the home should be part of licensing review. ON MOTION BY Mr. Heran, SECONDED BY Mrs. Waldrop, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to oppose Staff s recommendation regarding Septic Compliance. Mr. Debraal offered to bring to the Committee s meeting next month verification regarding receipt of the homestead exemption from the Property Appraiser as a short term rental property. He also offered to address the earlier discussion regarding the Property Appraiser s evaluation of surrounding properties when involving a short term vacation rental and if any, effect on appraisals. Mr. DeWaters asked whether the State required any additional insurance for rental properties. Chairman Powell voiced his understanding the State did not require any insurance when renting a house for a year, a month, a week, or a weekend; mortgage companies required insurance. Other Business Action Required a Meeting Dates ON MOTION BY Dr. DeWaters, SECONDED BY Mr. Heran, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to accept the scheduled 2016 meeting dates for the Short Term Vacation Rental Advisory Committee. 11 Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

14 Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m. The next meeting of the Short Term Vacation Rental Advisory Committee is scheduled for Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., in Building B, Conference Room B Short Term Vacation Rental/Unapproved December 10, 2015 C:\Users\sjohnson\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\N78NXF6W\Minutes docx

15 Office of INDIAN RIVER COUNT'{ ATTORNE~{ Dylan T. Reingold., County Attorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County 1\ttorney Kate Pingolt Cotner, "-\ssistant County Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Members of the Short-Term Vacation Rental Advisory Committee ~ THROUGH: Stan Boling, Community Development Directo~ FROM: William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney ~ i, DATE: December 28, SUBJECT: Property Appraiser's Office Evaluation of Short-Term Rental Properties At the request of members of the Short-Term Vacation Rental Advisory Committee, I discussed two issues with representatives from the Indian River Cou nty Property Appraiser's Office. Homestead Exemption Question: Does a homeowner who uses their declared homestead property for a shortterm rental lose the exemption? Answer: Yes, if certain conditions are met. Discussion: The applicable statute on this issue states as follows: Rental of homestead to constitute abandonment.- (1) The rental of all or substantially all of a dwelling previously claimed to be a homestead for tax purposes shall constitute the abandonment of such dwelling as a homestead, and the abandonment continues until the dwelling is physically occupied by the owner. However, such abandonment of the homestead after January 1 of any year does not affect the homestead exemption for tax purposes for that particular year unless the property is rented for more than 30 days per calendar year for 2 consecutive years. For long term rentals, if homeowners Mr. and Mrs. Smith rent out their house after January 1, 2016 the homestead exemption will be kept fo r 2016, but is lost after December 31, 2016 and will not be regained until Mr. and Mrs. Smith move back in to establish their home as their homestead once again. For short term vacation ren tals, if

16 Re: Property Appraiser's Office Evaluation of Short-Term Rental Properties December 28, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Mr. and Mrs. Smith rent their house out for more than 30 days a year for two years in a row, their homestead exemption would be lost. Therefore, any homeowner who claims the homestead property exemption, risks losing the exemption if they rent out their house as a vacation rental for more than 30 days a year for two consecutive years. Property Appraisal and Valuation Question: Will the Property Appraiser's office appraise my property differently if I live in a neighborhood popular to short term rentals? Answer: No, appraisals are based on comparable sales or improvements made to a house, not uses of a residence. Discussion: According the Property Appraiser's Office, single family properties, whether homestead, long term or short term rentals, are not appraised any differently due to their use. The valuation of single family dwellings are driven by sales of like properties or improvements made to the property, not the existing use of a property. Thus, a neighbor to a vacation rental could not assert that their property value has gone down due to surrounding short-term rental homes as the decrease in property value is due to the sales of similar houses, not the proximity to a rental property Assessment of certain residential and nonresidential real property.- (5) Except as provided in this subsection, property assessed under this section shall be assessed at just value as of January 1 of the year following a qualifying improvement or change of ownership or contro l. Thereafter, the annual changes in the assessed value of the property are subject to the limitations in subsections (3) and (4). For purpose of this section: (a) A qualifying improvement means any substantially completed improvement that increases the just value of the property by at least 25 percent. This memo is being included in the Committee's January 14, 2016 agenda packet so it may discussed by the members at that meeting. V:l I /foflll!_'r Cl1ris1ioo\J 5 J 121,,\ / 1:1110 to,1 //Jr.1 Shon Tt'hll I i.caiimuloc

17 New Business Fines & Citations INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Short Term Vacation Rental Advisory Committee /?6 Stan Boling, AICP; Community Development Director Roland M. DeBlois, AICP~ Chief of Environmental Planning and Code Enforcement January 5, 2016 Enforcement of Regulations - Citation Powers and Fines It is requested that the Short Term Vacation Rental Advisory Committee (STVRAC) formally consider the following information at its regular meeting of January 14, BACKGROUND At the STVRAC's October 12, 2015 meeting, a number of topics were identified for Committee discussion at subsequent meetings relating to vacation rentals. One of the topics identified was enforcement of regulations through County issuance of citations and fines. To that end, this memorandum summarizes county code enforcement authority and procedures for the STVRAC's consideration, provides analysis, and includes staff recommendations. OVERVIEW & ANALYSIS The Indian River County Code Enforcement Section, within the Community Development Department, consists of a section chief, four code enforcement officers and a part-time assistant/receptionist. The four code officers are assigned enforcement districts within the unincorporated county. The code officers are charged with civil (not criminal) enforcement duties and have no arrest authority; criminal investigation and enforcement occurs separately through the Sheriffs Department. Generally, code enforcement actions by the code officers are complaint based. The number of code complaints received and investigated by the code officers (combined) on an annual basis ranges between 2,000 and 2,500. The majority of violations investigated as a result of received complaints are informally resolved by the code officers, prior to the issuance of formal orders or the imposition of fines (see Attachment #1). Staff primarily enforces County codes by one of two means: by bringing cases to the Indian River County Code Enforcement Board for Board issuance of orders and fines, or by issuing citations (similar to traffic tickets). Following is an overview of those two means of enforcement.

18 Code Enforcement Board The Indian River County Code Enforcement Board, originally established in 1983, is a quasi-judicial board comprised of seven appointed members that meets on a monthly basis. Through its authority established in Florida Statutes (FS) Chapter 162 (see Attachment #3), the Code Enforcement Board can impose fines of up to $250 per day/per violation for first time violations, and up to $500 per day/per violation for repeat violations. The fine amount accumulates until code compliance is confirmed. For first time violations, the Code Enforcement Board process affords a respondent an opportunity to comply prior to Board imposition of fines. For repeat violations, however, fines may be imposed without an allowance of time for compliance prior to the issuance of fines. A "repeat violation" is defined in FS Chapter 162 as follows: "Repeat violation" means a violation of a provision of a code or ordinance by a person who has been previously found through a code enforcement board or any other quasi-judicial or judicial process, to have violated or who has admitted violating the same provision within 5 years prior to the violation, notwithstanding the violations occur at different locations. Attachment # 1 to this memorandum is a flowchart depicting steps of the enforcement process through the Code Enforcement Board. The process consists of formal evidentiary and compliance hearings, which may ultimately result in the Board issuing fines for noncompliance. Board orders imposing fines are recorded in the public records as liens against any real or personal property owned by the cited respondents. In enforcing code regulations on property, the landowner is cited as the respondent, as well as the tenant if applicable and warranted. The Code Enforcement Board typically imposes fines of $100 per day for unresolved code violations. Once a cited violation for which a fine has been imposed is confirmed by county staff as resolved, a respondent may request that the Code Enforcement Board consider setting the accrued "flat" fine at a reduced amount. In hearing such requests, the Code Board considers such factors as: the gravity of the violation; any actions (or non-actions) taken by the respondent to correct the violation; and any previous violations committed by the respondent. In almost all cases, any reduced fines at minimum are set to cover administrative costs, which typically run between $1,700 and $3,000 per case. Citation Powers & Fines As an alternative to the Code Enforcement Board hearing process, County code enforcement officers have the power to issue citations for various violations, subject to specific procedures set forth in County Code Section and FS Chapter 162. County Resolution No established a schedule of citation fine amounts for various types of violations, including a $50 fine for vehicle parking and storage violations (per vehicle) and $50 for noise violations. A citation procedures flowchart, County Code Section , and Resolution No are attached (see Attachments #2 and #4). Citation procedures include issuance of a warning for an initial violation with time given for compliance. Most violations (80% to 90%) are resolved at this step in the process, without further code enforcement action. A violation that occurs thereafter may be cited per occurrence. Under the citation resolution currently in place, for example, a $50 citation may be issued for each vehicle in violation of a parking regulation after a warning has been issued to the owner of the premises. Citations are typically issued to the landowner, but may also include a tenant, renter, or other identified violator, depending on the circumstances and evidence. C:\Userslroland\Desktop\Vacation rental enforce staffrpt - STVRAC docx 2

19 Specific types of violations and associated fine amounts can be added to the County' s current citation schedule by adoption of a resolution, as was done in 2013 when fertilizer ordinance violations were added to the schedule by Resolution No As indicated in the Attachment #2 flowchart, a citation issued by code enforcement staff can be appealed to either County Court or to the Indian River County Code Enforcement Board. After due process, if the citation fine is upheld and remains unpaid, the fine is recorded in the public records as a lien against any real or personal property owned by the respondent. After-Hours Enforcement Although the County Code Enforcement Section's office hours are weekdays 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., code enforcement staff will conduct limited enforcement investigations on weekends or "after hours," particularly when a recurring violation at a location has been identified and is anticipated to occur at those times. If a complainant observes a violation occurring on weekends or after hours, the complainant is advised to: Contact the sheriff's office if the violation is a public disturbance or a public safety hazard warranting immediate response; or Document the violation ( e.g., photos) and advise code enforcement staff for follow-up action to deter future/recurring violations. In such cases, code enforcement staff will either bring the matter forward to the Code Enforcement Board or issue a citation based on the documentation provided by the complainant, or will follow-up with after hour investigation as warranted for further documentation if the violation is recurring in nature. Vacation Rental/Commercial Event Enforcement Regarding short term vacation rentals, the types of violations anticipated to occur most often that would warrant citations are parking violations and commercial events at residences. County Resolution 92-59, which established fines and notice time frames for various code violations, includes fines for general illegal parking and storage ($50 per vehicle), but does not list a fine for commercial events at residences, or for parking violations specific to the recently adopted code section relating to vacation rentals. For those reasons, the citation resolution needs to be revised to list fines for those violations. Moreover, the revisions should distinguish between first time violations and repeat violations, with higher fines for repeat violations to deter recurrence. For vacation rental vehicle parking violations, staffs position is that a $50 fine (per vehicle) for first violations and a $100 fine (per vehicle) for repeat violations are appropriate amounts. Regarding commercial events at residences, the fines should be substantially higher so as not to be absorbed as a "cost of doing business." Consistent with allowances under FS Chapter 162, staff supports County establishment of a fine of $1,000 for first violations and $5,000 for repeat violations of the commercial event at residence restrictions. The STVRAC has discussed and is considering the topic of the County establishing local licensing requirements for short term vacation rentals. If such requirements are ultimately adopted by the County, enforcement of those requirements would be through the Code Enforcement Board process, which is the appropriate process for ensuring compliance by obtaining a license, and not through the citation C:\Users\roland\Desktop\Vacation rental enforce staffrpt- STVRAC docx 3

20 issuance process. As such, a revision to County Resolution to list a citation fine for a licensing violation would not be warranted or necessary. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the committee direct staff to draft an amendment resolution for County Commission adoption, amending the Resolution fine schedule and establishing fines for vacation rental parking violations and for commercial events at residences, as follows: Vacation rental parking: $50 (per vehicle) for first violations; $100 (per vehicle) for repeat violations; and Commercial event at residence: $1,000 for first violations; $5,000 for repeat violations. Attachments: 1. Code Enforcement Board Procedures Flowchart 2. Citation Issuance Procedures Flowchart and County Code Section Florida Statutes Chapter County Resolution No C :\Users\roland\Desktop\Vacation rental enforce staffrpt - STVRAC docx 4

21 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD (CEB) PROCEDURES l complaint received, I ~J Informal efforts to resolve violation. {), Notice of Code Violation sent to violator. V Authorization to send Notice to Appear requested from the Code Enforcement Board by staff at CEB meeting. Violator provided notice of this and any subsequent CEB meeting. If approved by CEB, Notice to Appear sent to violator. V Evidentiary hearing held at CEB meeting. Code Enforcement Board order issued. ~} Code Enforcement Board order sent to violator, specifying timeframe for compliance. ~> Compliance hearing held at CEB meeting. Extensions of time granted for compliance if warranted, or fines imposed for noncompliance. Order Imposing Fine recorded in the public records as a lien against real and personal property of the violator. {} Violator opportunity to request that the CEB reduce the accrued fine amount once the violation is resolved. V Fine paid, lien released. anachm NT 1

22 GENERAL CITATIONS ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE FLOWCHART Violation Identified Code Officer Issues Warning Requiring Compliance Respondent Does Not Comply Respondent Complies Citation Issued Case Closed Respondent Appeals to Court or Code Board Respondent Pays Fine County Court Hearing Scheduled ounty Code Board Hearing Scheduled Case Closed Court Issues Verdict County Code Board Upholds or Rescinds Citation Fine Recorded as Lien Until Paid F:\Community Development\Users\ROLAND\Code Enforcement\Citation flow chart.doc AnACHMENT Z

23 Section Code enforcement citation procedures-general. (1) These procedures are enacted pursuant to F.S (2) Citation authorization; application. A code enforcement officer so designated by the county is authorized to issue a citation to a person when, based upon personal investigation, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed a civil infraction in violation of a duly enacted county code or ordinance; the county court will hear the charge. Designation as a code enforcement officer does not provide the code enforcement officer with the power of arrest or subject the code officer to the provisions of F.S through (3) Notification prior to citation issuance; procedures. (a) Prior to issuing a citation, a code enforcement officer shall provide notice to the person that the person has committed a violation of a code or ordinance and shall establish a reasonable time period within which the person must correct the violation. Such time period shall be no more than thirty (30) days. If, upon personal investigation, a code enforcement officer finds that the person has not corrected the violation within the time period, the code enforcement officer may issue a citation to the person who has committed the violation. A code enforcement officer does not have to provide the person with a reasonable time period to correct the violation prior to issuing a citation and may immediately issue a citation if the code enforcement officer has reason to believe that the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety or welfare, or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible. Ifil Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph (103.07(3)(a)), the board of county commissioners shall adopt, by resolution, a schedule of violations and penalties to be assessed by code enforcement officers, including standard notification time periods for specific types of violations, said time periods not exceeding thirty (30) days. (b) A citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be in a form prescribed by the county and shall contain: 1. The date and time of issuance. 2. The name and address of the person to whom the citation is issued. 3. The date and time the civil infraction was committed. 4. The facts constituting reasonable cause. 5. The number of the section of the code or ordinance violated. 6. The name and authority of the code enforcement officer. 7. The procedure for the person to follow in order to pay the civil penalty or to contest the citation. 8. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects to contest the citation. 9. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects not to contest the citation. 10. A conspicuous statement that if the person fails to pay the civil penalty within the time allowed, or fails to appear in court to contest the citation, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to contest the citation and that, in such case, judgment may be entered against the person for an amount up to the maximum civil penalty. 11. ATIACHMENT 2

24 A statement to read as follow: I hereby elect to waive my right to a court hearing and in lieu thereof select to have my case heard by the Indian River County Code Enforcement Board or designated special master. I understand that the decision of the code enforcement board or designated special master shall be final and binding on me. {signature). {4) After issuing a citation to an alleged violator, a code enforcement officer shall deposit the original citation and one copy of the citation with the county court, unless the alleged violator elects to appear before the code enforcement board or designated special master in which case the citation and copy shall be deposited with the secretary of the code enforcement board. (5) Any person who willfully refuses to sign and accept a citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in F.S , (6) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the enforcement of building codes adopted pursuant to F.S , as they apply to construction, provided that a building permit is either not required or has been issued by the county. (7) The provisions of this section are an additional and supplemental means of enforcing county codes and ordinances; nothing contained in this section shall prohibit the county from enforcing its codes or ordinances by any other means. (Ord. No. 92-9, 1, ) Footnotes: --- (3) --- For purposes of this section, "irreparable or irreversible" violations shall include (but not be limited to) violations that result in apparent financial advantage for the violator in comparison to /aw-abiding citizens.

25 Select Year: j , I [B The 2015 Florida Statutes Title XI COUNTY ORGANIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Chapter 162 COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT View Entire Chapter CHAPTER 162 COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT PARTI LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARDS (ss ) PART II SUPPLEMENTAL COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CODE OR ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES (ss ) PARTI LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARDS Short title Intent Applicability Definitions Local government code enforcement boards; organization Enforcement procedure Conduct of hearing Powers of enforcement boards Administrative fines; costs of repair; liens Duration of lien Appeals Notices Actions for money judgments under this chapter; limitation Provisions of act supplemental Short title. -Sections may be cited as the "Local Government Code Enforcement Boards Act." History.- s. 1, ch ; s. 72, ch ; s. 1, ch Note.- Former s lntent.- lt is the intent of this part to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and

26 welfare of the citizens of the counties and municipalities of this state by authorizing the creation of administrative boards with authority to impose administrative fines and other noncriminal penalties to provide an equitable, expeditious, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing any codes and ordinances in force in counties and municipalities, where a pending or repeated violation continues to exist. History.-s. 1, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 1, ch ; s. 1, ch ; s. 1, ch Note.-Formers Applicability.- (1) Each county or municipality may, at its option, create or abolish by ordinance local government code enforcement boards as provided herein. (2) A charter county, a noncharter county, or a municipality may, by ordinance, adopt an alternate code enforcement system that gives code enforcement boards or special magistrates designated by the local governing body, or both, the authority to hold hearings and assess fines against violators of the respective county or municipal codes and ordinances. A special magistrate shall have the same status as an enforcement board under this chapter. References in this chapter to an enforcement board, except ins , shall include a special magistrate if the context permits. History.-ss. 1, 2, ch ; s. 3, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 1, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 63, ch Note.-Former s Oefinitions.-As used in ss , the term: (1) "Local governing body" means the governing body of the county or municipality, however designated. (2) "Code inspector" means any authorized agent or employee of the county or municipality whose duty it is to assure code compliance. (3) "Local governing body attorney" means the legal counselor for the county or municipality. (4) "Enforcement board" means a local government code enforcement board. (5) "Repeat violation" means a violation of a provision of a code or ordinance by a person who has been previously found through a code enforcement board or any other quasi-judicial or judicial process, to have violated or who has admitted violating the same provision within 5 years prior to the violation, notwithstanding the violations occur at different locations. History.-s. 1, ch ; s. 4, ch ; s. 10, ch ; s. 3, ch ; s. 3, ch ; s. 3, ch ; s. 22, ch Note.-Former s Local government code enforcement boards; organization.- (1) The local governing body may appoint one or more code enforcement boards and legal counsel for the enforcement boards. The local governing body of a county or a municipality that has a population of less than 5,000 persons may appoint five-member or seven-member code enforcement boards. The local governing body of a county or a municipality that has a population equal to or greater than 5,000 persons must appoint seven-member code enforcement boards. The local governing body may appoint up to two alternate members for each code enforcement board to serve on the board in the absence of board members. (2) Members of the enforcement boards shall be residents of the municipality, in the case of municipal enforcement boards, or residents of the county, in the case of county enforcement boards. Appointments shall be made in accordance with applicable law and ordinances on the basis of experience or interest in the subject matter JtiriscHction of the respective code enforcement board, in the sole discretion of the local governing body. The membership of each enforcement board shall, whenever possible, include an architect, a businessperson, an engineer, a general contractor, a subcontractor, and a realtor.

27 (3)(a) The initial appointments to a seven-member code enforcement board shall be as follows: 1. Two members appointed for a term of 1 year each. 2. Three members appointed for a term of 2 years each. 3. Two members appointed for a term of 3 years each. (b) The initial appointments to a five-member code enforcement board shall be as follows: 1. One member appointed for a term of 1 year. 2. Two members appointed for a term of 2 years each. 3. Two members appointed for a term of 3 years each. Thereafter, any appointment shall be made for a term of 3 years. (c) The local governing body of a county or a municipality that has a population of less than 5,000 persons may reduce a seven-member code enforcement board to five members upon the simultaneous expiration of the terms of office of two members of the board. (d) (e) A member may be reappointed upon approval of the local governing body. An appointment to fill any vacancy on an enforcement board shall be for the remainder of the unexpired term of office. If any member fails to attend two of three successive meetings without cause and without prior approval of the chair, the enforcement board shall declare the member's office vacant, and the local governing body shall promptly fill such vacancy. (f) The members shall serve in accordance with ordinances of the local governing body and may be suspended and removed for cause as provided in such ordinances for removal of members of boards. (4) The members of an enforcement board shall elect a chair, who shall be a voting member, from among the members of the board. The presence of four or more members shall constitute a quorum of any sevenmember enforcement board, and the presence of three or more members shall constitute a quorum of any five-member enforcement board. Members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for such travel, mileage, and per diem expenses as may be authorized by the local governing body or as are otherwise provided by law. (5) The local governing body attorney shall either be counsel to an enforcement board or shall represent the municipality or county by presenting cases before the enforcement board, but in no case shall the local governing body attorney serve in both capacities. History.-s. 1, ch ; s. 5, ch ; s. 4, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 4, ch ; s. 1, ch ; s. 1441, ch Note.-Former s Enforcement procedure.- (1) It shall be the duty of the code inspector to initiate enforcement proceedings of the various codes; however, no member of a board shall have the power to initiate such enforcement proceedings. (2) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), if a violation of the codes is found, the code inspector shall notify the violator and give him or her a reasonable time to correct the violation. Should the violation continue beyond the time specified for correction, the code inspector shall notify an enforcement board and request a hearing. The code enforcement board, through its clerical staff, shall schedule a hearing, and written notice of such hearing shall be hand delivered or mailed as provided ins to said violator. At the option of the code enforcement board, notice may additionally be served by publication or posting as provided in s If the violation is corrected and then recurs or if the violation is not corrected by the time specified for correction by the code inspector, the case may be presented to the enforcement board even if the violation has been corrected prior to the board hearing, and the notice shall so state. (3) If a repeat violation is found, the code inspector shall notify the violator but is not required to give the violator a reasonable time to correct the violation. The code inspector, upon notifying the violator of a

28 repeat violation, shall notify an enforcement board and request a hearing. The code enforcement board, through its clerical staff, shall schedule a hearing and shall provide notice pursuant to s The case may be presented to the enforcement board even if the repeat violation has been corrected prior to the board hearing, and the notice shall so state. If the repeat violation has been corrected, the code enforcement board retains the right to schedule a hearing to determine costs and impose the payment of reasonable enforcement fees upon the repeat violator. The repeat violator may choose to waive his or her rights to this hearing and pay said costs as determined by the code enforcement board. (4) If the code inspector has reason to believe a violation or the condition causing the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, and welfare or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible in nature, the code inspector shall make a reasonable effort to notify the violator and may immediately notify the enforcement board and request a hearing. (5) If the owner of property that is subject to an enforcement proceeding before an enforcement board, special magistrate, or court transfers ownership of such property between the time the initial pleading was served and the time of the hearing, such owner shall: (a) Disclose, in writing, the existence and the nature of the proceeding to the prospective transferee. (b) Deliver to the prospective transferee a copy of the pleadings, notices, and other materials relating to the code enforcement proceeding received by the transferor. (c) Disclose, in writing, to the prospective transferee that the new owner will be responsible for compliance with the applicable code and with orders issued in the code enforcement proceeding. (d) File a notice with the code enforcement official of the transfer of the property, with the identity and address of the new owner and copies of the disclosures made to the new owner, within 5 days after the date of the transfer. A failure to make the disclosures described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) before the transfer creates a rebuttable presumption of fraud. If the property is transferred before the hearing, the proceeding shall not be dismissed, but the new owner shall be provided a reasonable period of time to correct the violation before the hearing is held. History.-s. 1, ch ; s. 5, ch ; s. 1, ch ; s. 5, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 1442, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 4, ch ; s. 64, ch Note.- Formers Conduct of hearing.- (1) Upon request of the code inspector, or at such other times as may be necessary, the chair of an enforcement board may call a hearing of an enforcement board; a hearing also may be called by written notice signed by at least three members of a seven-member enforcement board or signed by at least two members of a five-member enforcement board. Minutes shall be kept of all hearings by each enforcement board, and all hearings and proceedings shall be open to the public. The local governing body shall provide clerical and administrative personnel as may be reasonably required by each enforcement board for the proper performance of its duties. (2) Each case before an enforcement board shall be presented by the local governing body attorney or by a member of the administrative staff of the local governing body. If the local governing body prevails in prosecuting a case before the enforcement board, it shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred in prosecuting the case before the board and such costs may be included in the lien authorized under s (3). (3) An enforcement board shall proceed to hear the cases on the agenda for that day. All testimony shall be under oath and shall be recorded. The enforcement board shall take testimony from the code inspector and alleged violator. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental due process shall be observed

29 and shall govern the proceedings. (4) At the conclusion of the hearing, the enforcement board shall issue findings of fact, based on evidence of record and conclusions of law, and shall issue an order affording the proper relief consistent with powers granted herein. The finding shall be by motion approved by a majority of those members present and voting, except that at least four members of a seven-member enforcement board, or three members of a five-member enforcement board, must vote in order for the action to be official. The order may include a notice that it must be complied with by a specified date and that a fine may be imposed and, under the conditions specified ins (1), the cost of repairs may be included along with the fine if the order is not complied with by said date. A certified copy of such order may be recorded in the public records of the county and shall constitute notice to any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest, or assigns if the violation concerns real property, and the findings therein shall be binding upon the violator and, if the violation concerns real property, any subsequent purchasers, successors in interest, or assigns. If an order is recorded in the public records pursuant to this subsection and the order is complied with by the date specified in the order, the enforcement board shall issue an order acknowledging compliance that shall be recorded in the public records. A hearing is not required to issue such an order acknowledging compliance. History.-s. 1, ch ; s. 6, ch ; s. 44, ch ; s. 6, ch ; s. 6, ch ; s. 3, ch ; s. 1443, ch ; s. 2, ch Note.-Former s Powers of enforcement boards.-each enforcement board shall have the power to: (1) Adopt rules for the conduct of i ts hearings. (2) Subpoena alleged violators and witnesses to its hearings. Subpoenas may be served by the sheriff of the county or police department of the municipality. (3) Subpoena evidence to its hearings. (4) Take testimony under oath. (5) Issue orders having the force of law to command whatever steps are necessary to bring a violation into compliance. History.-s. 1, ch ; s. 7, ch ; s. 7, ch ; s. 7, ch Note.-Former s Administrative fines; costs of repair; liens.- (1) An enforcement board, upon notification by the code inspector that an order of the enforcement board has not been complied with by the set time or upon finding that a repeat violation has been committed, may order the violator to pay a fine in an amount specified in this section for each day the violation continues past the date set by the enforcement board for compliance or, in the case of a repeat violation, for each day the repeat violation continues, beginning with the date the repeat violation is found to have occurred by the code inspector. In addition, if the violation is a violation described ins (4), the enforcement board shall notify the local governing body, which may make all reasonable repairs which are required to bring the property into compliance and charge the violator with the reasonable cost of the repairs along with the fine imposed pursuant to this section. Making such repairs does not create a continuing obligation on the part of the local governing body to make further repairs or to maintain the property and does not create any liability against the local governing body for any damages to the property if such repairs were completed in good faith. If a finding of a violation or a repeat violation has been made as provided in this part, a hearing shall not be necessary for issuance of the order imposing the fine. If, after due notice and hearing, a code enforcement board finds a violation to be irreparable or irreversible in nature, it may order the violator to pay a fine as specified in paragraph (2)(a). (2)(a) A fine imposed pursuant to this section shall not exceed $250 per day for a first violation and shall

30 not exceed $500 per day for a repeat violation, and, in addition, may include all costs of repairs pursuant to subsection (1 ). However, if a code enforcement board finds the violation to be irreparable or irreversible in nature, it may impose a fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation. (b) factors: In determining the amount of the fine, if any, the enforcement board shall consider the following 1. The gravity of the violation; 2. Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; and 3. Any previous violations committed by the violator. (c) (d) An enforcement board may reduce a fine imposed pursuant to this section. A county or a municipality having a population equal to or greater than 50,000 may adopt, by a vote of at least a majority plus one of the entire governing body of the county or municipality, an ordinance that gives code enforcement boards or special magistrates, or both, authority to impose fines in excess of the limits set forth in paragraph (a). Such fines shall not exceed $1,000 per day per violation for a first violation, $5,000 per day per violation for a repeat violation, and up to $15,000 per violation if the code enforcement board or special magistrate finds the violation to be irreparable or irreversible in nature. In addition to such fines, a code enforcement board or special magistrate may impose additional fines to cover all costs incurred by the local government in enforcing its codes and all costs of repairs pursuant to subsection (1 ). Any ordinance imposing such fines shall include criteria to be considered by the code enforcement board or special magistrate in determining the amount of the fines, including, but not limited to, those factors set forth in paragraph (b). (3) A certified copy of an order imposing a fine, or a fine plus repair costs, may be recorded in the public records and thereafter shall constitute a lien against the land on which the violation exists and upon any other real or personal property owned by the violator. Upon petition to the circuit court, such order shall be enforceable in the same manner as a court judgment by the sheriffs of this state, including execution and levy against the personal property of the violator, but such order shall not be deemed to be a court judgment except for enforcement purposes. A fine imposed pursuant to this part shall continue to accrue until the violator comes into compliance or until judgment is rendered in a suit filed pursuant to this section, whichever occurs first. A lien arising from a fine imposed pursuant to this section runs in favor of the local governing body, and the local governing body may execute a satisfaction or release of lien entered pursuant to this section. After 3 months from the filing of any such lien which remains unpaid, the enforcement board may authorize the local governing body attorney to foreclose on the lien or to sue to recover a money judgment for the amount of the lien plus accrued interest. No lien created pursuant to the provisions of this part may be foreclosed on real property which is a homestead under s. 4, Art. X of the State Constitution. The money judgment provisions of this section shall not apply to real property or personal property which is covered under s. 4(a), Art. X of the State Constitution. History.- s. 1, ch ; s. 8, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 8, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 8, ch ; s. 4, ch ; s. 1, ch ; s. 5, ch ; s. 1, ch ; s. 65, ch Note.- Formers Duration of lien.-no lien provided under the Local Government Code Enforcement Boards Act shall continue for a period longer than 20 years after the certified copy of an order imposing a fine has been recorded, unless within that time an action is commenced pursuant to s (3) in a court of competent jurisdiction. In an action to foreclose on a lien or for a money judgment, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee, that it incurs in the action. The local governing body shall be entitled to collect all costs incurred in recording and satisfying a valid lien. The continuation of the lien effected by the commencement of the action shall not be good against creditors or subsequent

31 purchasers for valuable consideration without notice, unless a notice of lis pendens is recorded. History.-s. 9, ch ; s. 9, ch ; s. 9, ch ; s. 5, ch ; s. 2, ch Appeals.- An aggrieved party, including the local governing body, may appeal a final administrative order of an enforcement board to the circuit court. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de nova but shall be limited to appellate review of the record created before the enforcement board. An appeal shall be filed within 30 days of the execution of the order to be appealed. History.-s. 1, ch ; s. 10, ch ; s. 3, ch ; s. 10, ch Note.- Former s Notices.- (1) All notices required by this part must be provided to the alleged violator by: (a) Certified mail, and at the option of the local government return receipt requested, to the address listed in the tax collector's office for tax notices or to the address listed in the county property appraiser's database. The local government may also provide an additional notice to any other address it may find for the property owner. For property owned by a corporation, notices may be provided by certified mail to the registered agent of the corporation. If any notice sent by certified mail is not signed as received within 30 days after the postmarked date of mailing, notice may be provided by posting as described in subparagraphs (2)(b)1. and 2.; (b) Hand delivery by the sheriff or other law enforcement officer, code inspector, or other person designated by the local governing body; (c) Leaving the notice at the violator's usual place of residence with any person residing therein who is above 15 years of age and informing such person of the contents of the notice; or (d) In the case of commercial premises, leaving the notice with the manager or other person in charge. (2) In addition to providing notice as set forth in subsection (1 ), at the option of the code enforcement board or the local government, notice may be served by publication or posting, as follows: (a)1. Such notice shall be published once during each week for 4 consecutive weeks (four publications being sufficient) in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the code enforcement board is located. The newspaper shall meet such requirements as are prescribed under chapter 50 for legal and official advertisements. 2. Proof of publication shall be made as provided in ss and (b)1. In lieu of publication as described in paragraph (a), such notice may be posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing, or prior to the expiration of any deadline contained in the notice, in at least two locations, one of which shall be the property upon which the violation is alleged to exist and the other of which shall be, in the case of municipalities, at the primary municipal government office, and in the case of counties, at the front door of the courthouse or the main county governmental center in said county. 2. Proof of posting shall be by affidavit of the person posting the notice, which affidavit shall include a copy of the riotice posted and the date and places of its posting. (c) Notice by publication or posting may run concurrently with, or may follow, an attempt or attempts to provide notice by hand delivery or by mail as required under subsection (1 ). (3) Evidence that an attempt has been made to hand deliver or mail notice as provided in subsection (1 ), together with proof of publication or posting as provided in subsection (2), shall be sufficient to show that the notice requirements of this part have been met, without regard to whether or not the alleged violator actually received such notice. History.-s. 1, ch ; s. 11, ch ; s. 3, ch ; s. 10, ch ; s. 6, ch ; s. 6, ch ; s. 3, ch ; s. 1, ch ; s. 2, ch ; s. 1, ch Note.-Former s

32 Actions for money judgments under this chapter; limitation.-actions for money judgments under this chapter may be pursued only on fines levied after October 1, History. - s. 4, ch Provisions of act supplemental.-lt is the legislative intent of ss to provide an additional or supplemental means of obtaining compliance with local codes. Nothing contained in ss shall prohibit a local governing body from enforcing its codes by any other means. History.-s. 11, ch PART II SUPPLEMENTAL COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CODE OR ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Enforcement of county or municipal codes or ordinances; penalties Designation of enforcement methods and penalties for violation of municipal ordinances Notice to appear Civil actions to enforce county and municipal ordinances Enforcement of county or municipal codes or ordinances; penalties.-.(1) As used in this section, "code enforcement officer" means any designated employee or agent of a county or municipality whose duty it is to enforce codes and ordinances enacted by the county or municipality. (2) A county or a municipality may designate certain of its employees or agents as code enforcement officers. The training and qualifications of the employees or agents for such designation shall be determined by the county or the municipality. Employees or agents who may be designated as code enforcement officers may include, but are not limited to, code inspectors, law enforcement officers, animal control officers, or firesafety inspectors. Designation as a code enforcement officer does not provide the code enforcement officer with the power of arrest or subject the code enforcement officer to the provisions of ss Nothing in this section amends, alters, or contravenes the provisions of any state-administered retirement system or any state-supported retirement system established by general law. (3)(a) A code enforcement officer is authorized to issue a citation to a person when, based upon personal investigation, the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed a civil infraction in violation of a duly enacted code or ordinance and that the county court will hear the charge. (b) Prior to issuing a citation, a code enforcement officer shall provide notice to the person that the person has committed a violation of a code or ordinance and shall establish a reasonable time period within which the person must correct the violation. Such time period shall be no more than 30 days. If, upon personal investigation, a code enforcement officer finds that the person has not corrected the violation within the time period, a code enforcement officer may issue a citation to the person who has committed the violation. A code enforcement officer does not have to provide the person with a reasonable time period to correct the violation prior to issuing a citation and may immediately issue a citation if a repeat violation is found or if the code enforcement officer has reason to believe that the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible. (c) A citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be in a form prescribed by the county or the municipality and shall contain: 1. The date and time of issuance. 2. The name and address of the person to whom the citation is issued. 3. The date and time the civil infraction was committed.

33 4. The facts constituting reasonable cause. 5. The number or section of the code or ordinance violated. 6. The name and authority of the code enforcement officer. 7. The procedure for the person to follow in order to pay the civil penalty or to contest the citation. 8. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects to contest the citation. 9. The applicable civil penalty if the person elects not to contest the citation. 10. A conspicuous statement that if the person fails to pay the civil penalty within the time allowed, or fails to appear in court to contest the citation, the person shall be deemed to have waived his or her right to contest the citation and that, in such case, judgment may be entered against the person for an amount up to the maximum civil penalty. (4) After issuing a citation to an alleged violator, a code enforcement officer shall deposit the original citation and one copy of the citation with the county court. (5) A county or a municipality is authorized to enforce codes and ordinances under the provisions of this section and may enact an ordinance establishing procedures for the implementation of such provisions, including a schedule of violations and penalties to be assessed by code enforcement officers. If a county or municipality chooses to enforce codes or ordinances under the provisions of this section, each code or ordinance or the ordinance enacted by the county or municipality establishing procedures for implementation of this section shall provide: (a) That a violation of a code or an ordinance is a civil infraction. (b) A maximum civil penalty not to exceed $500. (c) A civil penalty of less than the maximum civil penalty if the person who has committed the civil infraction does not contest the citation. (d) For the issuance of a citation by a code enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an act in violation of a code or an ordinance. (e) (f) For the contesting of a citation in county court. Such procedures and provisions as are necessary to provide for the enforcement of a code or an ordinance under the provisions of this section. (6) Any person who willfully refuses to sign and accept a citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided ins ors (7) The provisions of this part shall not apply to the enforcement pursuant toss and of the Florida Building Code adopted pursuant to s as applied to construction, provided that a building permit is either not required or has been issued by the county or the municipality. (8) The provisions of this section are additional and supplemental means of enforcing county or municipal codes or ordinances and may be used for the enforcement of any code or ordinance, or for the enforcement of all codes and ordinances. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit a county or municipality from enforcing its codes or ordinances by any other means. History.- s. 11, ch ; s. 7, ch ; s. 1444, ch ; s. 3, ch ; s. 4, ch ; s. 115, ch ; s. 35, ch ; s. 4, ch Designation of enforcement methods and penalties for violation of municipal ordinances.-the governing body of a municipality may designate the enforcement methods and penalties to be imposed for the violation of ordinances adopted by the municipality. These enforcement methods may include, but are not limited to, the issuance of a citation, a summons, or a notice to appear in county court or arrest for violation of municipal ordinances as provided for in chapter 901. Unless otherwise specifically authorized and provided for by law, a person convicted of violating a municipal ordinance may be sentenced to pay a fine, not to exceed $500, and may be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment, not to exceed