Author: rcreightoniii

MEETING RECAP

City Council heard several proposed amendments to Code Enforcement ordinances on Thursday morning. I posted my thoughts on these earlier, which you can read in my original post below. Unfortunately, the livestream malfunctioned during the city attorney’s presentation and a chunk of the discussion is missing. From what was available, here’s what they covered and my response.

Alignment with State Statute

Two of the amendments align the city code with state statute. One is the definition of “repeat violator”. Tampa’s definition has uniquely differed from other local governments in the state to the detriment of low-income neighborhoods. I describe this on the site and in the original post. Passing this is a win. From what I saw there was no opposition from Council to this amendment.

The other amendment increased the penalty for demolition of historic structures without a permit to 20% of the market value of the property before the demolition occurred. For a $400,000 property, that comes out to an $80,000 fine. I learned during the discussion that this penalty is defined by state statute, so there’s nothing we can do about it. I would like to have seen a harsher fine for the irrevocable loss of our history, but apparently the 20% comes from a new state law that’s a huge improvement on the measly $5,000 standard fine we had before.

Outside Counsel as Code Enforcement Special Magistrate (CESM)

As I said in the original post I had no opposition to this, it just wasn’t clear why it was needed. That clarity was provided by the city attorney. It turns out the City already has a contract in place with outside counsel. There are several reasons for this. At times none of the CESMs are available for hearings, which creates a backlog. Additionally, there have been instances when rulings from CESMs have caused issues because they were not made by a legal professional. Including outside counsel in the amendment seems completely reasonable and appropriate given this explanation.

Executive Order on the Settlement and Recovery of Liens

Councilmembers Hurtak and Carlson expressed their hesitation to delegate legislative authority to the administration, which is what embedding this executive order into the code appears to do. This pushback befuddled the city attorney, who peevishly cited that the charter gives the Mayor power to enact code through executive order anyway, and argued this offers flexibility for more timely changes. I found her resistance arbitrary and unconvincing. The impasse resulted in a continuance of the updates to November, giving the council members time to address their concerns with the legal department and hear from the community.

The policy for settlement and recovery of liens enacted in this executive order does a lot. It grants the authority for the legal department and code enforcement to handle the process. It sets definitions. It outlines compliance settlement guidelines for homesteaded and non-homesteaded properties with different settlement amounts for each. It creates different programs, such as the “new owner program” and the “distressed structure rehabilitation program”. It makes a carve out for veterans. It looks a whole lot like something you’d find spelled out anywhere else in the code.

I’m not sure why it’s such an outlandish suggestion and unmanageable hardship to migrate this policy language from executive order to ordinance. As I mentioned in the original post, this executive order is essentially unsearchable. Unless you want to spend a few hours opening and closing every executive order from now to 2022 to find it through slavish repetition, you have to make a public records request to read it. Why not make it available as an ordinance on Municode so the public knows what the policy actually is?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Written by Bobby Creighton

ORIGINAL POST

Thursday Tampa City Council will be considering several updates to the Code Enforcement chapter of city ordinances. These changes are coming to City Council for first reading without a workshop, which is unusual. I was once told by the code enforcement boss “if you can get them to change the rules we’ll follow the rules.” It seems they took the initiative on this one. 

Here are the changes, along with some thoughts. I’ll start with the least appropriate and work towards the best change. 

1 – Fines and Liens by Executive Order

For some reason, the section on fines and lien settlements has essentially been boiled down to “see executive order xyz”. 

City Council’s relationship with the administration has become adversarial at times due to accusations of undermining and usurpation. Inserting a Mayor’s executive order into the code for how enforcement fines and liens should be handled doesn’t help. That’s clearly a legislative matter and the purview of City Council. There are no such references to executive orders anywhere else in the code. 

The executive order is buried in an unsearchable database. I had to make a public records request to read it. The contents of that executive order should be written out as an ordinance where it can be amended by the officials elected to make decisions about policies such as this. That’s City Council. Once the ordinance is in place the executive order should be retracted. 

As to fine accumulations, lien settlements, and other related issues, that’s a matter of researching best practice and putting that into place. I haven’t dug into that corner of code enforcement, so I can’t make comments there. The city attorneys should be presenting recommendations to Council for a vote on how to implement these. 

2 – Outside attorney as code enforcement special magistrate 

Code enforcement special magistrate is a volunteer position. The update appears to reduce this to a single individual where before there had been several. This special magistrate is appointed by the mayor and approved by City Council. It’s not clear why this has been reduced down to a single position, but some time ago there was a ceremonial “thank you” to the volunteers who had been serving in this role. 

The update also provides for outside counsel to serve as special magistrate. This outside counsel would be engaged by the City attorney without City Council approval with how the update is worded. My question is, how would this transition go? If there are active magistrates, will their term be cut short? Would that position be intentionally unfilled by the mayor so the City attorney can bypass Council and appoint an outside lawyer of their own choosing, or of whoever else can influence them? Will this outside counsel be paid, or will they also be a volunteer?

I’m not against this change on the face of it. It’s just not clear why this change is necessary and how it will go if passed. 

3 – Fines for demolition of historic structures. 

There’s an update that allows an exception for the code enforcement special magistrate to impose increased fines when a building that is on the National Register of Historic Places or in a National Historic District is demolished without a permit. They are recommending a fine that’s 20% of the property’s market value before the building came down. 

I hope this extends to demolition by neglect. I also hope City Council tells them to raise this from 20% to closer to 100% of the market value. No one should be knowingly and willfully demolishing the irreplaceable heritage of our city. Our historic places are what make Tampa, Tampa. These places tell the story of who we are. I say if you tear down a historic structure without permission, you pay the City back for what the property is worth. Because once it’s gone, it’s not coming back. 

4 – Updated repeat violator definition, closing of the “slumlord loophole”

I’m going to take credit for this one. I identified that Tampa’s repeat violator definition is an anomaly. That’s because most, if not all local governments use Florida state statute to define what a repeat violator is. Tampa does not for reasons that are too convoluted to explain in this post. 

For at least a decade, Tampa’s repeat violator definition created what I call a “slumlord loophole”. Our definition treated violations address by address, no matter if the same owner had the same issue at multiple properties. This substantially reduced the penalties applied to slumlords in Tampa compared to elsewhere in the state.

The alignment of the repeat violator definition with state statute is a win for all the folks who complain about the LLC owners who don’t appear to give a damn about the neighborhood where they invested. If Mr. Owner has the same issue going on at property A, B and C, this update will impose proportionate justice for their negligence. How code enforcement will track this is a relevant question.

For those that argue lower-income property owners will get swept up, ask yourself, how many poor people own multiple properties compared to wealthier people? The people with means to own multiple properties have a responsibility to take accountability for the condition of their stuff. There are hardship exemptions in place for a reason. There are also volunteers in the community who do great work cleaning up properties for the less fortunate.

Written by Bobby Creighton