Article and Photos by Linda Charlton
The Clermont City Council meeting on Tuesday, August 24 looked short on paper when it started, with only two items of unfinished business and one of new business. But a little over three hours later, when it ended, Clermont council and staff were left with a lot to digest. As a result, there may be changes to how Clermont does code enforcement — but maybe not until there is a new city manager.
Code enforcement was the theme of the evening, from a council-only discussion on how to process code violations to an extensive citizen presentation by Charles Forth, a retired code enforcement officer living in downtown Clermont. Forth’s biggest point was that if the City continues with the current system of reactive code enforcement, the city will be forever changed, and not in a good way.
Even one of the ‘unfinished business’ items had a code enforcement element.
Harvey Rosenberg was on hand to advocate approval of a zoning change to the parcel on which his realty business is located (300 E Hwy 50). The proposed change would potentially have allowed him to keep his barbed wire in place. Rosenberg installed the wire in frustration after being robbed multiple times, and has installed landscaping that could potentially disguise it. As a result, he has had no more robberies, but he did have a code violation. Staff, which recommended against the zoning change, had let Rosenberg know that the change was the only move that might have allowed him to keep the wire. Council rejected the zoning change unanimously. As Rosenberg left the room, one audience member commented “there goes a business.”
Forth’s presentation, as he described it, came out of his efforts to help a citizen on Desoto Street whose problems seemed linked to a nearby unsecured derelict house. After giving council a rundown of his extensive certifications in the code enforcement field, he took council on a virtual tour of the older part of the city, with photos of representative code violations, including the unsecured derelict house, as well as trash piles, overgrown lawns and fields, unauthorized advertising flags and illegal parking.
“When people drive by and they see this,” Forth said, “they think ‘they get to do this, why can’t I’ ….? Someone sees this, what you’re inviting is for this to happen in your whole town. You have to have a sense of balance. You’re going to have 44,000 people who want to do it their own way.”
The City’s current code enforcement system, as understood by Forth, is reactive. That means cases are opened based on complaints received.
Until about five years ago, the City had three code enforcement officers. Now they have two to service the city’s 19 square miles. A third officer has been hired and is currently in training, but that officer is to spend two days a week (weekends) patrolling the boat ramp area.
As a point of comparison, the seven-mile district that Forth supervised in downtown Orlando had a total of eight code enforcement officers, three of which were dedicated to ‘lawn patrol.’ Looking at cities more or less the size of Clermont, Winter Haven (Polk County) has three code enforcement officers, a population of a little under 50,000 and an area of 33 square miles, not counting the lakes. DeLand (Volusia County) has two code enforcement officers, an area of 19 square miles and a population of approximately 38,000. What the three jurisdictions have in common is a proactive or combo proactive/reactive code enforcement system.
And as DeLand spokesman Chris Graham pointed out, the proactive side of code enforcement is liable to become much more important in the near future. A recent change to state law means that code enforcement cases may no longer be opened on the basis of anonymous complaints. Realistically, that will result in fewer citizen complaints.
Speaking of his experience in Orlando, Forth said “In Parramore, we went house by house, street by street, and educated the people.”
Forth sees the majority of people as wanting to do the right thing, once they understand it. He also advocated for a code enforcement board system — as opposed to the city’s current special magistrate system — to process cases that do result in fines.
Forth’s point was that people being cited will have a lot more respect for a judgement given by a council of their peers than by a special magistrate who most likely is not a part of the community.
The council discussion near the top of the meeting, well before Forth spoke, centered on the possibility of changing the special magistrate system (in place for five years) back to the city’s original code board enforcement system. The code board/magistrate discussion kicked off when interim city manager Scott Davidoff reported that the city’s current special magistrate has resigned. Staff recognized that the resignation presented an opportunity to switch back to the code enforcement board-of-peers system. The consensus of council seemed to be that switching back would be a good thing, but the motion by council member Jim Purvis to do that failed nonetheless, by a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilmember Tim Bates expressed concern that the timing was off. Given that city manager Darren Gray and interim city manager Susan Dauderis had both resigned, Bates felt that making another major change at this point could be more than staff could handle. Councilman Ebo Entsuah expressed his fondness for the code board system but sided with Bates on the basis of timing. Councilmember Michele Pines wanted a list of pros and cons for the switch before making any decision. Purvis and Mayor Tim Murry, who have both served on the city code enforcement board in the past, voted for the switch.
Following Forth’s presentation, Purvis did ask if any on the council would consider rescinding their earlier vote against switching to code board. He had no takers, however, there was a consensus of council to direct staff to come back with an outline on what the procedure and costs would be to make the switch.
