C.O.N.A. of South Pinellas County

The Snowbirds Grow Restless-

Mar 14, 2004

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

Neighbors and Friends:

CONA is on the march this year. We have set an
agenda at our last two meetings. Now, we look forward to making progress on the issues that impact our ability to make better neighborhoods.

By having the neighborhood leaders offer issues and priorities, it is much more powerful than if I had set the agenda. Happily, there was a strong consensus on the issues and now we can get to work.

The newsletters and meetings will try to focus on one issue at a time while realizing that other issues will come up occasionally. This month's meeting is a roundtable on codes from the perspective of Mike Dove, the Deputy Mayor for Neighborhoods, Sheldon Swartz, the chair of the Code Enforcement Board, and a long time Code inspector, probably Bob Miles.

We need your input as the customer. We hope to leave the meeting with clearer ideas of what needs to change so that codes become a stronger ally in our efforts to improve neighborhoods. Please come and bring neighbors.

Sincerely,
Karl Nurse,
President, CONA


FOCUS OF THE MONTH:
Codes Compliance

In support of our TOWN MEETING, this month?’s newsletter is dedicated to the issue of Codes Compliance in the City of Saint Petersburg. Council Member Rick Kriseman, Deputy Mayor Mike Dove and Code Enforcement Board Chair Sheldon Schwartz have contributed articles to the newsletter that do a good job of framing the Codes issues. On behalf of CONA, I thank Rick, Mike and Shelly for their time, insights and support.

As Karl has noted, we are attempting to use the CONA Newsletter to help us focus on issues identified when we set our agenda in January and February. I hope this approach makes the newsletter both interesting and relevant.

We plan to focus the newsletter on other agenda issues in the future. I would appreciate your feedback concerning newsletter content.

We can have a ?“focus?” for newsletter content and still include other news stories of interest to neighborhoods. In that regard, I encourage everyone to continue submitting neighborhood oriented articles for publication.

Best Regards,
Steve Plice
CONA 1st Vice President &
Newsletter Editor


The March CONA Meeting will be a special TOWN MEETING format addressing all aspects of the Code Enforcement issue. Public participation is welcome.
Wednesday, March 17th at:
The SUNSHINE CENTER, 330 5th St. N.
Doors open at 6:00 p.m.; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.


CODE Compliance in St. Petersburg
By Mike Dove

The mission of Code Compliance is to work in partnership with residents and businesses to promote, preserve, and maintain the City's many attractive neighborhoods and commercial areas. We do this through public education, facilitating a problem solving approach to issues, and using available resources and enforcement processes to improve our community.

The fact that the property values throughout the City continue to rise and that we were recently named one of America?’s Most Livable Communities are strong indicators that enforcement of minimum property codes is working. However, that is little consolation to anyone that lives next to a problem property, a boarded house, or someone who repeatedly violates the codes. Code enforcement is not a process that ever ends. There will never be a time when there are no code violations. It is also a process that can always be reviewed and reformed. What can be changed is limited by the legal processes required. However, at many steps during the process decisions are made by individual investigators, management, the violator, attorneys, or the Code Enforcement Board that affect how long it takes any particular case to be resolved. Those steps are always subject to question and local ordinances should be reviewed occasionally to see if other cities have found better ways of enforcement. Some changes could only be made if state law changed.

Perhaps even more significant is that as the City has progressed, neighborhoods have become more empowered, residents are better informed about city codes, and the level of expectation of our ability to solve problems has risen substantially. Those are good things. The quality of life of our neighborhoods and business corridors is measured by how safe, clean, and aesthetically appealing we perceive them to be. The ability to accomplish these goals is delicately balanced by the legal tools that are available to enforce the codes of the City and the rights of property owners.

In the past year, the Code?’s department handled over 75,800 inspections, about 80,000 phone calls, sent 48,600 letters, and opened over 24,600 cases. The vast majority of those cases were resolved with simple phone calls, personal contacts, or letters of citation. However, 2,966 cases went to the Code Enforcement Board and 382 cases were handled through the Municipal Ordinance Violation (MOV) process, which means County Court. Investigators and supervisors attend City team and neighborhood meetings, meet with residents, and try to return all phone calls. They seldom are thanked for a job that typically means at least 50% of the people they interact with are upset with either being cited, upset because someone wasn?’t cited, or because the problem does not immediately go away. It is a difficult job.

Also in the past year, we successfully resolved two public nuisance cases for the first time, foreclosed on the first property for code enforcement liens, and bought properties for back taxes to resolve them cheaper than going to court. Staff of multiple departments identified the criteria for screening the worst problem sites and established about 880 of them. These are cases that are repeat violators, have multiple violations, are in the top ten priorities of the City teams, or have associated police issues. While that number is significant, there are about 120,000 properties in the City. That is 0.7% of the total number of properties.

We continually track the number of boarded properties throughout the City. The first year of counting was 1993 and 893 properties were identified. We seem to have stopped making progress at about 3540. There will always be some properties that will be boarded, even if only for a short time. On a positive note, we are demolishing fewer properties and seeing more stipulated agreements where property owners are spending more to renovate boarded properties for sale. Two years ago, we started tracking aging cases. That identifies cases by the year they were started. In 2002, the number of cases that had started earlier than the year 2000 was over 700. In 2003, the number of cases started prior to 2000 was reduced to about 200. That is a result of focusing on the worst cases.

There are several things coming in the near future. The rental inspection ordinance, which was prepared with representatives from CONA, is scheduled for public hearing on April 22. The Codes Web site www.stpete.org/codes.htm is changing. The annual report is available on line, a draft of the rental ordinance is available, and other items are being added. Within this year, you should be able to access a map on the Codes Department web site that will identify cases in your neighborhood by type. For each investigator area, we will be able to map their coverage of the neighborhood to show if any areas are missed. We will install laptop computers in the trucks that will have wireless access and each investigator will have a cell phone so that they can spend more time in the field without having to come back to the office to return calls and do the paperwork. These technological tools should add hours of coverage and increase efficiency.

There are very few ?“quick fixes?” to solving some of the long-standing codes issues. The rental ordinance going forward for adoption is a good example of an issue that took a year of study, reviewing other cities and state law, and consensus building. It is not an easy solution and we do not know how successful we will be until we try. Parking in front yards is an example of a labor-intensive case type that is difficult to enforce, not always successful, and would be much better solved by a law that would allow us to write a parking ticket each time it occurs. There are several similar case types that could perhaps be better addressed by the same type of intense scrutiny as the rental ordinance.

There is an area of concern that CONA should address immediately with the Legislature. On July 1, 2004, a new requirement will go into effect that will require the City to pay $200 for Court costs to prosecute a Municipal Ordinance Violation (MOV). The Codes Department is responsible for about 500 cases per year and the Police Department handles hundreds more. Very few cases result in a fine as high as $200. The additional fee would raise the cost of prosecuting these cases $100,000. That is a cost the City could not bear and it will severely cripple our enforcement ability by taking away one of the tools we have. I recommend that CONA take a strong stand to repeal this legislation and encourage other neighborhoods throughout the State to join them.

Finally, I ask that CONA members engage in a constructive process of partnering with staff, the legal department, and the Public Services, Public Safety, and Infrastructure committee Mr. Kriseman chairs. Identify some issues that can be examined in depth and that can either be changed or a conclusion reached that they are operating as effectively as is possible under the current rules. Use your ability to connect to other neighborhoods around the State to find the best ways to enforce the codes, identify legislation or ordinances that need to be changed, and help in awareness about what are code violations. Thanks for your efforts and I look forward to working with you this year.


St. Petersburg Code Enforcement Board
By Sheldon Schwartz

So you think that once a case is brought before the Code Enforcement Board (CEB) it?’s a done deal. Well, think again. Code violations for about 5% of the City?’s cases end up here, and may take awhile to bring into compliance.

The CEB meets monthly on the 4th Wednesday of each month beginning @ 8:30 or as soon thereafter. There are 7 members and 2 alternates.

On average the City has over 10,000 active cases and processes over 30,000 + total cases annually. Roughly 95% of the cases are closed thru City staff and property owner actions so about 2000 are brought before the CEB annually. While individuals are ordered to appear, about 20% present their cases before the CEB at our monthly meetings. On average then, we take public testimony on about 25 to 30 cases each month during the Evidentiary Hearing.

The Lien Certification Hearing, whereby we can give more time for compliance or certify liens on properties with continuing code violations, immediately follows the Evidentiary Hearing. There are about 20+ property owners each month who personally present testimony at this session.

The final session at our monthly meetings is the Lien Release session where we can release or reduce previously certified liens. Due to time constraints, the CEB has limited this session to 12 cases each month.

Individuals and City staff present sworn testimony before the CEB. Some reasons for property owners not resolving the violations in the stipulated time are: not adequately notified; the violations don?’t exist; agree with the violations but do not have the wherewithal to fix them; they are working on them; they need more time because of health and/or hardship reasons; the investigator/City is out to get them; they didn?’t know the property had violations when they bought it?…etc. The CEB has to sort these out and arrive at a decision.

Hence, the CEB; is the ?“last straw?” (end game) for the City to achieve compliance; is the place where alleged violators can dispute whether violations exist and/or request more time be allowed for compliance; is the forum in the sunshine that provides the property owner with the incentive (potential liens) to fix the violations; and, implements the process that will hopefully motivate others with code violations to fix them before they are ordered to appear. The balance between strict enforcement and leniency on any single case is a matter of each CEB members?’ judgment based on the facts.

Is it a perfect system? Of course not. Does it fulfill its?’ intended goals? I believe that it does. Can the process be improved? Of course.

Every CEB member is committed to maintain and improve St. Petersburg as a safe contemporary community that values its?’ uniqueness. We welcome new ideas consistent with our vision.

Sheldon A. Schwartz
Chair, St. Petersburg Code Enforcement Board


2004 is "The Year of the Code"
By Rick Kriseman

Three years ago, I was elected to serve as the council representative for District One. District One is like every other district within the city when it comes to issues of concern for citizen. As such, for the two years that followed my election, I heard from my constituents about issues involving the police department, traffic calming, zoning issues, and code enforcement issues. In fact, during those two years, my office received more questions and comments regarding code enforcement than any other issue in the city and my district.

When running for re-election this past November, I again heard complaints about code enforcement/compliance.

It is for that reason that I put a New Business Item regarding code enforcement on the council?’s agenda requesting a full discussion and examination by the Public Service, Public Safety and Infrastructure Committee (PSPS& I). My colleagues on council did not hesitate in supporting this request, having themselves received the same level of contact from the citizens residing in their districts.

As the chair of the PSPS & I committee, I have the luxury of scheduling as many committee meetings as I believe are necessary to fully and completely examine our code enforcement department. While I anticipate in will take several meetings before all of our questions have been answered, as of the date of the writing of this article, my committee has met twice in committee, with the CONA president attending the last scheduled meeting.

During the two meetings which have been held to date, Administration and Code Enforcement Department head Sally Eichler have presented my committee with information regarding staffing levels, how the code enforcement officers are assigned throughout the city, and the time-line that a code violation follows - from initial complaint through hearing before either the Code Enforcement Board or Circuit Court.

I expect that during the next several meeting we will continue to look at staffing levels, how the officers are assigned, ways and tools we can provide to help make the officers more efficient, and we will look at specific codes-related ordinances, to see if these ordinances should be eliminated, strengthened, or new ordinances added.

I, as do my fellow council members, recognize the importance of code enforcement on our neighborhoods and on economic development. I am pleased to see so many citizens in this community who also recognize the importance of a strong code enforcement department, and who are no longer willing to live with code violators as their neighbors or in their neighborhood.

As I like to say, 2004 is the ?“year of the code?”, and I look forward to working with CONA to ensure that our codes are enforced aggressively, yet in a fair and even manner, thereby making St. Petersburg?’s code enforcement department the best in the State, and the City of St. Petersburg an even better place to live, work and raise our children.

Civically Yours,

Rick Kriseman, City Council Member, District One, Chair, Public Service, Public Safety and Infrastructure Committee.


Saint Petersburg, Florida?….
A Most Livable City

Mayor Baker announced that St. Petersburg has won a Most Livable Community award from the Partners for Livable Communities (PLC) - a national nonprofit community development organization. The award is based on a community's creativity and success in economic development, utilizing its assets such as arts and culture and natural environmental resources, collaborative leadership and revitalization of downtowns and neighborhoods. In selecting St. Petersburg as one of its 26 livable communities, PLC noted our " excellent urban planning, a beautiful natural environment, energetic civic involvement plus its red-hot arts scene..." The city's application was made possible through a collaboration with the Downtown Partnership and sponsorship of Bank of America, Opus South Corporation, Sembler Co. and Progress Energy.
A new website www. mostlivable.org will feature extensive information about each livable community. St. Petersburg's site will include information and photos about its extraordinary network of neighborhoods associations, parks, leisure services, youth programs, programs for senior adults, as well as the downtown city center. The website will go "live" April 20, when the winning communities will be recognized at a presentation at the National Press Club in Washington DC.


Codes Comments?…..
From the Neighborhoods

The following comments were submitted for publication in this issue of the CONA Newsletter by various CONA Members

I think Code Enforcement is very important to preserve property values and enhance neighborhood desirability, but, I don't feel that a City wide sweep is the way to go at all.
The only codes "problem" we seem to have in Riviera Bay Civic is boats parked too long in the driveway on weekdays. The problem arises when the boat is out there because its being worked on, or because there is a storm coming, or waiting for pickup to be serviced.
I've called codes because of a few houses with multiple cars without tags. It looked like they were operating a car repair shop. Nothing changed. Don't know if "Codes" ever went out or not. Maybe a follow up with the caller would be a good improvement.
As for a "City Wide Sweep," a few years ago, the codes dept did a sweep of our neighborhood and cited all the "illegal" sheds. Some had been there for over 20 years. There was such an uproar that the city backed off its demand for the sheds to be taken down. Some were "Grandfathered In." The city also said it would switch to a "complaint only" investigation of the sheds.
David Hoover - Riviera Bay Civic


Partnership Notes
Neighborhood Partnership Office
Susan P. Ajoc, AICP, Director
Neighborhood Partnership Program
City of St. Petersburg
P.O. Box 2842 St. Petersburg, FL 33731-2842
Phone: (727) 892-5141 Fax: (727) 893-5323
Email: Susan.Ajoc@stpete.org

Neighborhood Partnership Matching Grants Program:
Don't forget the grant workshops in March:
1:00 & 6:00 p.m. City Hall, Room 100
Wednesday, March 10th - Signs and Decorative Lighting
Tuesday, March 16th - Neighborhood Plans
Wednesday, March 24th - Landscaping

Grant deadline: September 3, 2004, by 5:00 p.m.
For more information, please call 892-5141.


More Codes Comments from the Neighborhoods

My experience with codes falling short is in a few areas:
1) weak code officers do not even start cases on the worst properties or close them out based upon a verbal promise of the property owner.
2) When the tough cases are followed thru, it takes about a year to get results which is a lot better than 1)above.,
3) There is a group of mostly bad landlords who require continuing code enforcement for junk trash and debris and front yard parking. They are cited regularly and do the most modest efforts to get the case closed.

Karl Nurse

?—?—?—?—?—?—?—?–

The following is a list of problems that we see most often in North Kenwood:
1. Problem properties that have gone before the CEB with liens being placed on these properties but nothing further is being done to correct problems. There is one house in our neighborhood that has been abandoned for approximately 5 years and Codes hand's are tied to get this property either condemned or an order to demolish. It seems the owner is in prison and liens do nothing to correct this problem.
2. Multiple cars are being parked in front of homes and is one of our biggest problems. Not only is this an eyesore but it is illegal. There are so many interpretations of what is legal and what is illegal. Some say its legal as long as there is mulch or some other pervious material being used. Others have told us that 45% of the property can be used for parking as long as there is an approved entrance to get onto the property. It seems the code for enforcement is very vague as to what is allowed or not allowed. One enforcement officer will say one thing and another officer will say something completely different. All code officers should be on the same page when interpreting violations. This is currently not the case.
3. There is a thin line that exists as to who is responsible for enforcing code violators. The police will say it is codes responsibility and codes will say it is a police problem. These 2 departments have to work together to correct all code violations.
4. We have a business in our area that clearly violates the code for open storage (unsightly display of merchandise that can be seen by the public when driving by) but we are told that until the new LDR's are rewritten codes will not enforce this violation. We don't understand why a new LDR would allow this unsightly display to continue.
5. Probably our biggest problem is parking on the city right-of-way (tree line). This is clearly a violation and fines are being levied against violators but people just don't get it. Is it possible that a stiffer fine would get their attention? We are not sure what should be done but something must be done to correct this eyesore.
Mainly what we are trying to say is; "the public needs to be more educated as to what is allowed and what is not." Also we feel that many of these violators are renters and either don't care or are oblivious as to what a code violation is. In either case something needs to be done to educate.
As an Association we feel that not enough is being done to correct violations. Perhaps a City mass mailing to all residents explaining the do's and don'ts is in order. This mailing should include all absentee landlords. This should inform the public what constitutes a code violation and what constitutes a police violation.
In conclusion, we as homeowners are very aware as to what our property values are but when you constantly have to deal with code violators this can only cause a devaluation of our property. We are not sure what more we can do but something definitely must be done to make St. Petersburg the best city in Florida.
Phil Whysong
President, NKNA


Preserving Our Nation?’s Memories
By Nan Colton

We are pleased to announce that our ?“Preserving Our Nation?’s Memories?” project has been awarded partial funding by the Florida Humanities Council, the nonprofit statewide program of the National Endowment for the Humanities. This humanities grant will enable us to offer this program free and open to the public.

?“Preserving Our Nation?’s Memories?” is a series of activities and events. 20-25 students selected from North Shore Elementary School will interview and record stories from 30 war veterans and workers who served in World Wars 1 and 2, the Korean, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf wars

St. Petersburg?’s local population is typical of most urban Florida cities and reflects a vast diversity of cultures, religions, and races. Through the ?“doing?” and ?“talking,?” a wide range of stories will be told. This process allows Floridians, both young and old, of all walks of life, to speak for themselves, explore their history, express their values and life experiences, and share their heritage.

We are looking for both veterans and war workers who are eager to share their memories.

Contact:
Nan Colton, Project Director ?– 893-7109
Sunshine City Senior Center


CONA BOARD OF DIRECTOR?’S MEETING MINUTES

The Sunshine Multi-Service Center February 18, 2004

President Karl Nurse called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

?˜ Karl distributed a survey form listing suggested CONA agenda items suggested at our January meeting. He then led us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag.
?˜ Prior to asking the attendees to indicate their six most important priorities among the items listed, Karl briefly reviewed each of the items listed.
?˜ We were told of plans to establish a new CONA Website that Clifford Holensworth, (Crescent Lake), has offered to develop for us.
?˜ At that point, all attendees were invited to identify themselves and the neighborhoods they represented.
?˜ Jeff Danner, (Historic Kenwood), then provided insights into their very successful Bungalow Tours Program, describing how other member associations can develop this concept to raise funds and arouse interest.
?˜ Karl Nurse reviewed the debates and voting that have focused on Albert Whitted Airport. He urged continued neighborhood involvement as this city property project moves forward.
?˜ Sheldon Schwartz, (Area Agency on Aging), made a presentation alerting our members to the threat of Medicare/Medicaid abuse in our contemporary society. His organization would welcome the opportunity to speak to our member neighborhood meetings.
?˜ Susan Ajoc, (Neighborhood Partnership), distributed workshop schedules for the new grant program. She presented many details of the program now extended to a 7-month window for applications.
?˜ Larry Dosh, speaking for a taxpayers group, urged our members to sign and collect petitions supporting a reform of our current sales tax legislation. The goal of this petition would be to gradually review and retire many of the sales tax exemptions provided by the current statutes
?˜ Compiling the results of the collected agenda priorities survey, President Nurse promised to convey the results to our Mayor and the City Council.
?˜ There was much discussion of reestablishing the Town Meeting format for our CONA meetings, which would focus on a single topic each month. As indicated by the agenda survey tally, Karl announced that our March CONA meeting would be a Town Meeting focused on the codes enforcement procedures of the city administration. Karl also suggested that our periodic meetings with the Chief of Police might be replaced with a town meeting program to press for more results oriented fact-finding.

Respectfully submitted,
Conrad Weiser, Secretary