Village Council Workshop

Village of Wellington 12300 Forest Hill Blvd Wellington, FL 33414 Action Summary - Final-revised Monday, October 27, 2014 3:00 PM Village Hall Village Council Workshop Bob Margolis, Mayor John Greene, Vice Mayor Matt Willhite, Councilman Anne Gerwig, Councilwoman John T. McGovern, Councilman Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final-revised October 27, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Margolis called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 2. REVIEW OF COUNCIL AGENDA Mr. Schofield presented the Agenda for the October 27th Council Meeting for discussion and review. A. 14-859 PRESENTATION BY NOAH NORWITCH OF DONATION TO VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Mr. Schofield presented the item. There were no changes recommended. B. 14-845 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR WELLINGTON COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 Mr. Schofield presented the item. Mayor Margolis stated he had a correction to the minutes that he would provide to the Clerk. C. 13-0387 RESOLUTION NO. R2014-64 (INTERLOCAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE WORTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ACME IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON) A RESOLUTION OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA’S COUNCIL APPROVING A SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAKE WORTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT, ACME IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Schofield presented the item. Mayor Margolis stated he had a correction to the minutes that he would provide to the Clerk. D. 14-757 AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE PRIMARY AND URGENT CARE SERVICES TO VILLAGE EMPLOYEES AND DEPENDENTS Mr. Schofield presented the item. Mr. De La Vega answered several questions from Council. There were no changes recommended. E. 14-758 RESOLUTION NO. R2014-62 (EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE) Village of Wellington Page 1 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final-revised October 27, 2014 A RESOLUTION OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA’S COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO (1) EXECUTE A MINIMUM PREMIUM AGREEMENT WITH CIGNA HEALTHCARE TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES, DEPENDENTS AND RETIREES; (2) RENEW EXISTING AGREEMENTS WITH CIGNA GROUP BENEFITS FOR LIFE, SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM DISABILITY; (3) CONTINUE WITH SELF FUNDED DENTAL INSURANCE UTILIZING DENTAL DECISIONS TO MANAGE THE PLAN; AND (4) APPROVE HRA FUNDING FOR EACH ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Schofield presented the item. Christian Bergstrom from the Gehring Group provided a presentation and answered several questions from Council. There were no changes recommended. F. 14-571 AUTHORIZATION TO UTILIZE A NATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL PURCHASING ALLIANCE (IPA) CONTRACT AS A BASIS FOR PRICING FOR THE LEASE OF NEW BACKUP DISASTER RECOVERY INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT Mr. Schofield presented the item. Mr. Silliman and Ms. Quickel answered questions regarding the current network infrastructure, on site and off site back up capability during disasters for hardware and storage, the age of the current servers, internet service, current department triage procedures, reasons for outages, security cameras and the future plan for an upgraded telephone system in order to scale the needs of the Village in a cost effective manner and stay within the legal governmental requirements. Mr. Schofield stated a three year plan for the entire Village’s technical equipment, to include replacement life, would be provided to Council. There were no changes recommended. G. 14-755 AUTHORIZATION TO RENEW AN EXISTING AGREEMENT FOR LOBBYING SERVICES Mr. Schofield presented the item. Mayor Margolis requested to move the item to the November 11th meeting in order to have staff provide additional information. Council consensus was to move this item to the November 11th agenda. Mr. Schofield requested that Council provide him with questions regarding the existing contract that they wanted addressed H. 14-786 AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY Village of Wellington Page 2 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final-revised October 27, 2014 AND DELIVERY OF ANTI-SCALENT TO AMERICAN WATER CHEMICALS, INC Mr. Schofield introduced the item. Mr. Riebe provided background on the item. There were no changes recommended. I. 14-827 AUTHORIZATION TO UTILIZE FLORIDA SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION AND U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT Mr. Schofield presented the item. Mr. Barnes addressed questions regarding budget for this item. There were no changes recommended J. 14-737 ORDINANCE NO. 2014-31 (REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 71, RENTAL DWELLING UNIT LICENSE) AN ORDINANCE OF WELLINGTON FLORIDA’S COUNCIL, RELATING TO LICENSING AND REGULATION OF RESIDENTIAL RENTAL UNITS; AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA CHAPTER 71 “RENTAL DWELLING UNIT LICENSES,” TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANDATORY LICENSING AND INSPECTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS HELD OUT FOR LEASE OR RENT AND PROVIDING RULES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO SUCH LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS; WAIVING THE LICENSE FEE FOR OWNERS REGISTERING TWO (2) OR LESS UNITS; AMENDING SECTION 71-33 SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE REQUIRING AN OWNER TO SUBMIT A MANAGEMENT PLAN AND INSTITUTING A REINSTATEMENT FEE AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Schofield presented the item. Mr. Stillings and Mr. Koch and answered questions regarding the cost of the license fee, waiving the license fee, reinstatement provisions, penalties, and existing data base (Naviline) for rentals to include the property owners or the management company name along with BTRs. Both Councilman Coates and Councilman Willhite stated waiving the license fee for one (1) unit and not two (2) or less was acceptable to order to protect the single family resident who has a need to rent their property. Ms. Cohen said the numbering on page 548, Section 71-33 needed to be corrected. Mr. Koch stated the correction would be made. Village of Wellington Page 3 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final-revised October 27, 2014 Ms. Cohen recommended Section 71-40 not be categorized as a “Savings Clause” but as “Other Remedies” or “Non-Exclusive Remedies.” K. 14-771 RESOLUTION NO. R2014-60 (SPECIAL USE PERMIT USPA INTERNATIONAL CUP POLO TOURNAMENT 2014) A RESOLUTION OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA’S COUNCIL APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE USPA INTERNATIONAL CUP POLO TOURNAMENT 2014 EVENT UTILIZING OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED MUSIC TO BE HELD AT 13444 SOUTHFIELDS ROAD; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Schofield presented the item. Mr. Stillings presented background and answered questions regarding live music, access point on Lake Worth Road and the ongoing use of the access point. Councilwoman Gerwig stated that she would recuse herself. There were no changes recommended. L. 14-840 RESOLUTION NO. R2014-63 (SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SMOKE INN WELLINGTON CIGAR LOUNGE) A RESOLUTION OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA’S COUNCIL APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR BURN ANOTHER ONE, LLC D/B/A SMOKE INN WELLINGTON CIGAR LOUNGE OUTDOOR EVENTS UTILIZING AMPLIFIED MUSIC LOCATED AT 11924 FOREST HILL BOULEVARD, SUITE 7; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Schofield presented the item. Mr. Stillings answered several of Council’s questions. There were no changes recommended. 4. ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS Ms. Cohen reported that the lawsuit filed by the Grille was dismissed and she would be sending out an administrative transmittal that with more detailed information. Ms. Cohen said that at the October 28th meeting she would be asking Council for direction in regards to medical marijuana issue. 5. MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Schofield stated that he had received a request to add a resolution to the October 28th agenda in support of the League’s position to remain in the Treasure Coast Planning Council. Council consensus was to add the resolution as Regular Agenda Item C. Village of Wellington Page 4 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final-revised October 27, 2014 3. WORKSHOP A. 14-865 DIRECTION ON SELECTION PROCESS FOR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPOINTMENTS Mr. Schofield presented the item. He stated that it was time to appoint special magistrates and staff was seeking direction on the process to be followed. Mr. Schofield noted that the two of the existing magistrates were seeking reappointment. Councilwoman Gerwig asked if the current appointments had reached their term limit. Mr. Schofield explained none of the magistrates had reached their term limit. Mr. Stillings said the term limits were four (4) two (2) year limits and this was the first two years of the term. Mayor Margolis asked for clarification as to why this was not on a regular agenda. Mr. Schofield said staff was seeking Council direction on the process prior to placing this item on the agenda. Mayor Margolis asked if Council could provide staff with direction at a Council Workshop. Mr. Schofield responded affirmatively. Councilman Coates said the report that was provided indicates a 90% reduction in fines and he questioned if the report included all of the magistrates. Mr. Koch replied affirmatively. Councilman Coates felt the fine reductions had increased significantly and felt the system was broken. Councilman Coates said residents, particularly repeat violators, were not going to respect our code, if we continued to discount on the fines. Councilman Willhite said in some cases the amounts have been discounted to less than 10%. He referenced a case where the fine amount was reduced from $180,903.27 to $771.73. Mr. Koch said the majority of the liens were for foreclosures and they were fortunate to collect the payments that were received. Councilman Willhite requested that the report be modified to identify the magistrate that approved each reduction. Councilman Willhite stated he watched one of the magistrate hearings where he heard the participants referring to each other on a first name basis which could leave someone with the impression that a reduction was being granted based on who they knew. Mr. Koch explained that the fine reduction cases were not scheduled in advance which prevented residents from shopping the magistrate that would hear their case. Councilwoman Gerwig referenced the statement on page 14 of 122 which stated that all cases were negotiated and settled by Steven Koch. Mr. Koch clarified the he negotiates the fine amounts and presents them to the magistrate for approval Councilman Coates asked if from a policy standpoint they were looking to make this compensatory or have a punitive aspect for not complying with the Code. Mr. Koch said that the statute outlines what can be considered when evaluating fine reductions. He said that the majority of the reductions relate to foreclosures where the new buyer is negotiating the agreement and not the bank. Councilman Coates asked if the problem was that the magistrates or was it with the reductions suggested by Mr. Koch. Mr. Schofield said the Statute Village of Wellington Page 5 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final-revised October 27, 2014 was very clear that the fines had to be proportionate to the violation. He said the goal of code enforcement is compliance; not punishment. Councilman Willhite asked could be done to achieve compliance before the fines escalate. He said staff time to pursue compliance would be better spent correcting the violation. Mr. Schofield explained that the violators have to pay actual costs and in some case there are punitive aspects to code enforcement, especially for repeat offenders. He said that when it comes to foreclosures, Wellington does not have an option on how much to collect because the buyer and the bankruptcy court are the ones negotiating the amount. Vice Mayor Greene asked how many cases on the list involved foreclosures. Mr. Koch explained that the majority of the cases were foreclosures, pre-foreclosures, short sales or bankruptcies. Mayor Margolis said he researched the fines and it appeared that the smaller the fine, the higher the payoff percentage. For example the fine in the amount of $180,903.27 was reduced to $771.73. He said he was aware of another owner that received a fine in the amount of $9000.00 and after the reductions ended up paying $4000.00 which was 40% to 50% of the total fine. Mayor Margolis stated the other problem that he sees is that the Special Magistrate that initially imposes the fine may not necessarily be the one to hear the case if it should come before the magistrate again. Councilman Willhite said having the magistrates rotate may not be a good thing. Mayor Margolis said he thought the case should go back to the same magistrate who gave the order initially. Mr. Stillings explained that Mr. Koch was the person negotiating the reductions and in most instances the magistrates are agreeing to the terms and conditions presented. Ms. Cohen stated the reductions are not negotiated until the violations are corrected. She said that Council would need to determine if they want to force compliance or if they want it to be a penalty. Ms. Cohen indicated that the philosophy has been to pursue compliance. Mayor Margolis said he agrees with compliance but is frustrated by violators that go before the magistrate and asks for a continuance over and over again and in the end pay a small fraction of the fine. Councilman Willhite asked if they could limit the number of continuances allowed per violation. Mr. Koch said they do not to go beyond four months before going in front of the magistrate. Ms. Cohen said that while it was Council’s intent to develop a policy to address their concerns regarding repeat violators, the impact of their decision could have an effect on other people. Ms. Cohen suggested that Council may want to direct the department to develop some type of fine reduction scale to be used in negotiating fine reductions. Mayor Margolis asked for clarification of the process followed for cease and desist orders. Mr. Schofield explained that individual found to be in violation are put on notice that any time in the next five years that the property owner is Village of Wellington Page 6 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final-revised October 27, 2014 found to be in non-compliance for the same violation the fine is reinstated starting from the date of the initial the violation. Mr. Schofield explained that the date may vary depending on the date the correction occurs. Councilman Coates stated that he was still trying to understand if the issue was with the magistrates or with the department recommended fine reductions. Mr. Schofield said it has always been the goal of code enforcement to pursue compliance and not punishment. Mr. Schofield said when negotiating reductions the staff must consider what is reasonable and proportionate based on the violation. He said that in some cases they recover cost and the violation is corrected that is sufficient. He stated that policy could be changed if Council determined that was not sufficient. Councilman Coates said the procedure was not sufficient because Council was constantly being criticized for not equally applying code enforcement. He suggested that they needed to do something to limit Mr. Koch’s discretion to discount the fines for intentional repeat violators. Mr. Schofield said the process was specifically outlined, for instance on homesteaded properties (75% of Wellington homes), once a fine is placed on a homestead property nothing else can be done until the owner re-finances or sells the property. He said the process as outlined in the statute requires that we send a notice of violation to the owner which list the violation(s), required action, and the allotted time to address the violation. Mr. Koch said that 70% of the violators correct the issue when they receive the first courtesy notice. Mr. Schofield stated if the violation is not corrected within the 30 days, a notice of hearing is sent indicating that the violation will be placed before the special magistrate to determine if in fact a violation existed. At that point, the magistrate can impose a fine and provide the violator with a time limit in which to correct the violation. Overall the compliance rate was at 98-99%. Mr. Schofield explained 85% to 90% of the violators comply after the first hearing and the last 2% of the violators comply after the second hearing. Vice Mayor Greene said his issue was with the violators that have appeared before the magistrate and the fine is reduced and they never pay. Mayor Margolis said the Settlement Agreements/Reductions List provided in the agenda, lists the case number but does not indicate the names of the violators. Councilman Coates said the Village was encouraging residents to challenge the system by negotiating drastic fine reductions and he thought it was a bad policy. Mr. Schofield said he would change the policy if that was Council’s desire. Mayor Margolis stated that Council had previously authorized a foreclosure and then staff negotiated a settlement of that foreclosure. He asked if Council approves the foreclosure, should they also approve the settlement. Ms. Cohen responded that it is costly to file an action, the fine has to be commensurate with the violation, and if you litigate you may still be required to settle. Councilman Willhite said that we may need to review our existing ordinances and clarify and/or modify where needed. He also suggested that they may Village of Wellington Page 7 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final-revised October 27, 2014 want to consider rotating code officers in neighborhoods to help address the issue of perceived selective enforcement. Councilman Willhite said his biggest concern was that the bigger reductions were granted to the repeat violators and the average resident receives a smaller reduction. Mr. Schofield stated that his understanding of Council’s direction was that staff identify and monitor the repeat violators and establish a policy that addresses those violators in a manner compliant with the statute. Mr. Schofield suggested that they could also change the policy to require that violators found to be in non-compliance after the second notice will be scheduled for the next available magistrate hearing to obtain a finding of fact that there was a violation. Mayor Margolis requested the list of violators (with names) whose fines have been reduced and the names of the violators have not paid the settlement amount. Councilman Willhite asked Mr. Koch what would happen if a resident was cited and the violation was reduced but he decides not to pay. Mr. Koch explained the lien would be placed on the property and they would not be entitled to a second reduction Councilman Willhite requested the names of all the individuals that met that criteria and the cost associated with those cases. Councilwoman Gerwig asked how long it would take to evict a tenant due to code violations. Mr. Koch said that the eviction could take thirty days and sometimes up to six months. Councilwoman Gerwig said that until the eviction took place, code enforcement was asking the landlord to do the impossible. Mr. Koch said in these situations usually the landlord communicates with staff and they work with him to achieve compliance. Mr. Schofield said that this workshop was more about the code enforcement process and he now had a sense of where Council wanted to be regarding that. He said they would bring the magistrate item back before Council. Mr. Stillings asked if the two magistrates whose terms had expired would be appointed. Mayor Margolis said they could not make a decision at the workshop. Mr. Schofield indicated that it would have to come back as a resolution for Council to approve. Mayor Margolis said the magistrates’ appointments were up and asked if they were scheduled to hear cases. Mr. Stillings said that they had been rescheduled, but would bring the resolution back as soon as possible. B. 14-813 HOUSE BILL 7023 DEVELOPMENT ORDER EXTENSION REQUEST Mr. Schofield that explained for the past several years the legislature has passed the blanket extensions to development orders. Mr. Stillings explained while the previous extensions were not required to be brought before Council, they were communicated to Council via an administrative transmittal. Mr. Schofield said he was aware that this was a topic of interest to Council and the only opportunity that they would have to discuss this was in a public meeting. Mayor Margolis said that Council could discuss the approval process but they had no say in the approval. Mayor Margolis said if the application for the extension was submitted in a timely manner then the extension was granted. Mr. Stillings said the deadline to file Village of Wellington Page 8 Village Council Workshop Action Summary - Final-revised October 27, 2014 was December 31, 2014 and noted that there were other development orders that had not been brought forward as of yet. Mayor Margolis asked if any of the applicants would be in violation as of January 2015. Mr. Stillings said that the development orders would expire on their normally scheduled deadline. Mr. Stillings said the bill applied to development orders expiring between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2016. Mayor Margolis requested that staff to contact the affected parties and make them aware of the deadline. 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS None 7. ADJOURN There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Village of Wellington Page 9